350th book of science for AP--- TEACHING TRUE GEOMETRY volume 1, (the science of shape-figure) for High School // teaching true math series by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's 350th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-
Archimedes Plutonium
TEACHING TRUE GEOMETRY volume 1, (the science of shape-figure) for High School // teaching true math series
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 350th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Dedication: I dedicate this book to Anderson High School near Cincinnati, Ohio for teaching me super well the formula of straight line in geometry Y--> mX + b, circa mid 1960s. For without that education, I doubt that AP would have become the King of Science.
Warning, as of 26July2025, this book is only 75% complete and will finish it sometime this winter, when not so busy with plants and the outdoors.
Personal Note in writing this textbook:: It has been a struggle for me in writing this book due to logical organization has to be logically so near to perfect, as to determine what math is taught in High School and beyond as in college and university. I believe we should have 2 years of geometry in High School and eliminate Algebra as a independent course and instead teach 2 years of geometry and the second year prepares the student for Calculus when they reach college. When the true numbers of mathematics is taught-- Decimal Grid Numbers, much of algebra is eliminated. In Old Math with their phony negative numbers, that half the time in algebra was dwelling on fake negative numbers, the other time waste was solutions to quadratic equations when in New Math we have a far more simple method. In these two years of High School geometry I teach all the algebra needed for students bound to college. In other words, the reason it is taking me so long to write this textbook, is that it prescribes to the math education in general--- what is taught in what order and in what value. We no longer teach Algebra in High School for all the algebra needed is contained in these two geometry textbooks. We change the name "algebra" to what it really is-- *polynomials*. Slowly but surely, writing this textbook tells me the Order in which math subjects should arise in school and the value of math subjects arising in school.
Recommendation: I am going to recommend deleting a course in Algebra in High School and where this book on Geometry volume 1 along with volume 2 contains all the algebra needed to prepare students in science for university. I say this because Old Math have fake numbers of Reals, negative numbers, rationals and irrationals even complex numbers, all a bunch of garbage. Once you recognize the only true numbers in mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, you no longer need a full year course of algebra. And especially considering the fact that Old Math Algebra never had the correct and proper axioms of algebra, such as --- all equations of math must have at all times a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number on the rightside of the equation at all times. When you have a axiom like that, you no longer need to spend 1/2 a year in solving quadratic equations. Upon reflection of "what did I learn in algebra" in High School to prepare me for life not in science, that answer is grim-- a year of wasted time on algebra, solving riddles with numbers that are phony.
Education Warning: I anticipate silly college departments of mathematics continuing with their mindless errors of Reals and the continuum. So we have the awful situation of High School students learning that Reals are fake numbers and the continuum is mindless prattle when Max Planck in 1900 starts the Quantum Mechanics Physics revolution. So the danger is that we have students in High School learning true math geometry and met with fool math professors still entrenched with their idiocy of Reals and continuum at colleges and universities.
I have 20 chapters for volume I Geometry in High School and need teachers to supplement homework assignments based on the text. I have found Overhead Projectors ideal tools to teach geometry for it requires the teacher to plan ahead his/her 1 hour classroom lecture and saves time rather than blackboard and chalk.
News Brief to Students: I write this textbook to be at the level of learning of intended students age-- never over their heads-- if things are Logically in place in sequence of ideas and to make sure I am not teaching over the heads of students. The prime reason that few people ever major in math in college and university, is because over 90% of math education is using books and lectures that are over the heads of the students sitting there to learn-- Proof-- if a classroom of science is silent and students taking notes-- is a classroom that is ___not learning. I myself experienced many textbooks used in class that were over the heads of the students, one in particular was Introduction to Mathematical Statistics by Hogg & Craig used in the time frame of 1968-1972 when I was a student in college. I never learned much from that book for it was totally over the heads of all students. For this book is appropriate to an audience who already took first year Statistics but not to beginners of statistics. Harold Jacobs in his book Mathematics A Human Endeavor does a few chapters on Probability and Statistics that would have been an excellent book to use for first year college students, not the remote and over the head Hogg & Craig.
Most math textbooks, even physics are over the heads of their intended audience and this is a shame because, well, few scientists have any marbles of logic in their heads to know what is appropriate for youngsters and what is ugly-not-appropriate. I bend over backwards to make this book just right for the age of students.
When students are listening and participating in instructions given, ___not taking notes for an hour___ is a classroom that is learning. A few notes are fine, but the purpose of a textbook is it contains the information, not a notebook.
Prologue: I write this book in story book style not only for a saving of time for me the author, but because students benefit the most if told something in a story book style. Also, I do this because I am limited to ascii-art mostly and pictures and diagrams are essential for geometry.
What is story book style? It is like reading Asimov's "The History of Physics" for that is written in story book style.
In story book telling, students comprehend more and are much more interested in the subject than in slogging and hacking through a dense textbook with lessons, then exercise problems, then homework. When using this textbook, the teacher has to know geometry and has to provide exercises and homework they make up, based on the book contents. And that maybe challenging to many schools as they often have teachers who do not know the subject well enough and rely on the book to give homework and examples and exercises.
Preface: This book replaces all High School geometry books, because they all use the wrong numbers of mathematics in their use of Reals when the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers. I took geometry in High School, 2 years of it and enjoyed it. But the education system of geometry uses the wrong numbers of math. They use what are called the Reals, which is cobbled together composition of integers, rationals, irrationals and negative numbers-- a total mess for true geometry is discrete while Reals are a continuum. These are fake numbers for starting in year 1900 in Europe with Max Planck begins Quantum Mechanics of Physics and the word "quantum" means discrete, not a continuum. The Reals of Old Math are a continuum and this is the reason they are fake numbers. On top of that, if you use the Reals, you can never do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC. To do a valid proof of FTC, it is essential to use the true numbers of mathematics-- the Decimal Grid Numbers, for these are numbers with holes and empty-space between one number and the next number.
Calculus is the pinnacle peak of mathematics achievement and the Reals with continuum cannot do calculus. Calculus is a mixture of geometry and of numbers and this textbook teaches up to calculus with the polynomial function, but waits to teach calculus itself in the College & University. My own textbooks of Teaching True Mathematics introduces the students to what calculus is, often called PreCalculus, but waits till college a university to actually teach Calculus.
So I write this book because geometry education needs to repudiate and toss onto the garbage dump the Reals for physics has proven that the world is "discrete" and not a continuum. Geometry must use Decimal Grid Numbers as the true numbers of mathematics.
All teachers of geometry and mathematics must adjust to the truth and reality of the world of physics and math.
Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a sheet of graph paper where I penciled in the Decimal 10 Grid.
------------------------------------
Table of Contents
------------------------------------
I want geometry fun and easy and crystal clear learning. Never over the head of a single student in class. I repeat many times items in one chapter will come up later in other chapters, this is a help to students remember what they learn and for some ideas, it is best to ease into them and not all at once.
1) The Indispensable Tool of Graph Paper for Geometry. The graph moves from left to right and from bottom to top.
2) Graphing the 10 Decimal Grid Numbers. Use the True Numbers of Mathematics, Decimal Grid Numbers, not the fake Reals with their no infinity borderline.
3) Introduction to the equation in mathematics.
4) Introduction to the point, straightline segment and plane-2nd dimension, the Plane Geometry.
5) Introduction to the angle in geometry.
6) Introduction to the triangle in geometry, and the three types of triangles, (1) right-triangle, (2) scalene, (3) obtuse, and include the isosceles right-triangle.
7) Pythagorean Theorem.
8) Introduction to dimension in geometry, the 3 and only 3 dimensions in the world, 3rd dimension, and Solid Geometry.
9) Introduction to square and rectangle and right-trapezoid in 2D; and cube and rectangular-box in 3D.
10) Introduction to the parallelogram and rhombus and kite.
11) Introduction to the regular polygons and the circle is a many sided regular polygon.
12) Introduction to the fictions of circle, ellipse and oval in geometry, for no curves exist in geometry.
13) Introduction to the 3D solids the Regular Polyhedra.
14) Introduction to the fictions of sphere, ellipsoid, ovoid.
15) Introduction to the cylinder, cone, torus.
16) What is an Axiom (some call it Postulate) and what is Theorem, Proof, and Corollary and Rule and Algorithm of Mathematics? What is theory and law in physics? A Glossary of Terms.
17) The Missing Axiom in Modern Geometry Discovered by AP.
18) Equation of the Straightline in geometry Y = mX + b, alternatively written as mX + b = Y and b -mX = Y.
19) Summary of all the Algebra that you need to know for High School.
20) Introduction to the Function in mathematics, and polynomials the only valid functions.
21) Postscript ---about this book continued "under construction" and completed by winter 2025.
---------------
Text
---------------
1) The Indispensable Tool of Graph Paper for Geometry. The graph moves from left to right and from bottom to top.
I like to always start physics or math pragmatically, with hands on learning with instruments, tools and equipment. Graph paper is superb as a start of geometry.
Now there probably is going to be trouble in commercial graph paper to getting what is needed for teaching science of Geometry. In getting 10 by 10 or 100 tiny squares per 2.56 square centimeters. Trouble is that commercial graph paper is not square but rectangle and so my best graph paper has 10 large squares of 100 small squares inside the large square for the x-axis but only 8 for the y-axis.
My favorite brand here at home is Tops-- Cross Section Pad 21.59 x 27.94cm, heavyweight paper, non-repro blue ink, 50 sheets.
I wish it were 10 for the y-axis also, so I need to cut out a row of 2 squares high and scotch-tape it underneath to form a square graph paper so I have 10 large squares amounting to 100 small squares for both x and y axis.
I am guessing that we can use a overhead projector that shows the 100 by 100 small squares for both x and y axis.
AP storybook textbook on geometry for High School
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You all have a sheet of graph paper before you. And on this overhead projector we have the Graph Paper in view. Now I numbered the x-axis with 0, .1, .2, .... out to 10. Not counting 0, I have 100 numbers and thus I have 100 points as the graph lines intersect.
I want the students at their desks mark out the x-axis and y-axis on their graph paper.
The Indispensable Tool of Graph Paper for Geometry
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the AP Axiom (you will learn axiom and AP axiom later) asking mathematicians to use tools like a Physics Experiment; the tool that comes to mind most often for me with pencil is the graph paper. In this picture of graph paper, I prefer the graph paper where it has Ten small squares inside a larger square. The Wikipedia engineering paper, second green picture but instead of 5 in a row small squares inside a larger square I want 10 in a row. And the reason is obvious for Decimal 10 Grid of Numbers.
Graph Paper one of the most important tools ever discovered in Mathematics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most important for it paves the way for Analytic Geometry and develops the function and calculus. Descartes discovered the Coordinate System of points and where the points lie in Space. The first graph in human history comes from printing blocks of 1596, the same year that Rene Descartes was born. So he would have a whole lifetime of connecting a graph to discovery of math coordinate system. Of course, Gutenberg would invent the "printing press" in 1440 to make it possible to have woodblocks to print a grid system of graph paper.
In math as well as physics, these sciences are propelled forward by tools of invention for it is easy to see that the graph paper is so important to mathematics, much in the same way that the storage of electricity in Leyden jars 1745 was for physics to develop electromagnetism. For modern physics is mostly electromagnetism.
--- quoting Wikipedia
Three styles of loose leaf graph paper: 10 squares per centimeter ("millimeter paper"), 5 squares per inch (“engineering paper"), 4 squares per inch (“quad paper")
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
Now I am looking at the history of the graph paper and it says in Wikipedia that the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a 1596 book pattern printed from a woodblock.
We know that Rene Descartes 1596-1650 discovered the Cartesian Coordinate System that requires graph paper.
But I am wondering if we have the Ancient Greeks of Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes ever have use of graph paper??? They had writing tools and had papyrus paper. Much of Ancient Greek geometry was done in sand boxes where they drew in the sand.
I am thinking that perhaps the Ancient Greeks would need graph paper to check and inspect their Primitive Pythagorean Triples of 3,4,5 or such as 5,12,13, or 8,15,17, or 7,24,25. You cannot draw a graph paper in a sand box. It would be nice to have a printing woodblock, but there was no printing in Ancient Greek times such as printing newspaper or books.
And so little of what the Ancient Greek mathematicians did was saved.
The Graph Paper is essential for Calculus and it is calculus that is the most important achievement of mathematics for Physics needs calculus. And to do Calculus and prove its most important theorem--- The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, you need empty space from one number to the next number, and this is what graph paper is ideal as a tool, as we assign the Decimal 10 Grid to intersection points and the empty space is perfectly seen as Discrete Geometry.
0 empty space 0.1 empty space 0.2 empty space 0.3 on and on to 9.9 empty space 10.0 for the x-axis on graph paper.
Using the overhead projector I have the graph paper and label the Decimal 10 Grid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Decimal 10 Grid starts with 0 then empty space 0.1 empty space 0.2 empty space 0.3 on and on to 9.9 empty space 10.0 for the x-axis on graph paper. Same goes for y-axis going up, start from 0 then empty space to 0.1 then empty space to 0.2, etc.
Notice that the 0 starts on the left side and moves rightward to 10 of the x-axis. Most people, 90% are right-handed. And the reason for this is that most physics particle interactions have the spin of the particle in the same direction as the momentum of the particle. In Physics, righthanded is where rotation spin and revolution are in the same direction. Even Earth looking from the North Pole has Earth spin counterclockwise as Earth revolves around the Sun counterclockwise. If Earth spin is clockwise and revolution counterclockwise would be lefthanded. Or if Earth spin was counterclockwise but revolution is clockwise, then the Earth is lefthanded symmetry.
So we always start with 0 for x-axis on the far left side of the graph paper.
For the y-axis the y-axis goes upward from 0, and here on the overhead projector we plot 0 all the way up to 10. Think of the y-axis as the human body that the head is the upward tallest part being the brain and the lowest part being the foot. The brain at 10 and the foot at 0.
Now some Asian countries start on the right side of the paper to write and to graph. This was a long tradition in their society. But in math and science we start all graphs from the left and move to the right on the x-axis. And start from 0 moving upward for the y-axis.
Physics has this.
--------------------
#------> this is right-handed where rotation of # is in the same direction as momentum of #.
-->
While
#--------> this is left-handed where rotation of # is in opposite direction as momentum of #.
<--
When we look up the Earth rotating on axis and Earth revolving around the Sun in astronomy. Looking from the North Pole we would see Earth rotating counterclockwise and Earth revolving around the Sun also counterclockwise.
If any student looks in any math book of Old Math where they believed in continuums and Reals as numbers will see they made nothing but huge mistakes. They will see their graphs have 4 quadrants to house negative numbers along with their fiction numbers of Reals.
In New True Math we have 1st Quadrant Only as seen by this.
y-axis
^
|
|
|_______> x-axis
0
In Old Math, error filled math their graph looks like this because of their fake numbers they call negative numbers.
^
|
|
<--------------|-------------->
|
|
|
v
Old Math was filled with error filled junk like negative numbers and the price they pay for that is that everything in Old Math is 4 times at least 4 times more stupid and complex.
Why, in Old Math, the math professors had not even the integrity to admit the slant cut of a cone is OVAL, never a ellipse. No wonder they could never admit that Negative Numbers have ___no reality___. And only positive nonzero numbers have a ___Reality of Existence___.
A major part of why Old Math failed miserably, is because the teachers and math professors never are required, mandatory requirement to take Logic in college and university in order to help them think straight and clear throughout their life.
2) Graphing the 10 Decimal Grid Numbers. Use the True Numbers of Mathematics, Decimal Grid Numbers, not the fake Reals with their no infinity borderline.
Now I do what is called the y-axis, the straight up at 90 degrees axis from x-axis and label these points the same as x-axis. Remember 90 degrees, for it is one of the most important of all angles and the angle most often occurring in physics because magnetism is always 90 degrees from electric current.
Graphing the 10 Decimal Grid Numbers
----------------------------------------------------
So the smallest Grid Number System is 10, the next would be 100 then 1000, then 10^4 which means 1 with four zeroes 10000, then 10^5 for you can pick the Grid you work in depending on how accurate you want for your engineering or science work. For very small things like in biology of micro-organisms you would need a Grid of say the size 10^6 =1,000,000 to utilize 10^-6 of 1/1000000. In the 10 Grid your smallest numbers are 1/10, then 2/10. In the 100 Grid the smallest numbers are 1/100 , then 2/100, etc. In the 1000 Grid the smallest numbers are 1/1000, then 2/1000 etc.
In 10 Grid our graph paper marked for x-axis and y-axis.
y-axis
10.0
9.9
9.8
9.7
9.6
.
.
.
.
.
.4
.3
.2
.1
0 .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, . . . 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 x-axis
So, not counting 0, there are 100 points along the x-axis and there are 100 points in that graph, not counting 0 on the y-axis. How many points altogether? There would be 100 x 100 =10,000 points, just like area is multiplication of side by side of a square or rectangle.
A Lesson on Area of Rectangle and Square
----------------------------------------------------------
You learned the multiplication table. If I ask any of you students what is 3x5 or 4x8 or 6x9 or 7x8 or 7x9, you should instantly answer because you memorized multiplication. But you did not memorize it for nothing, or for doing only your money accounts. You memorized multiplication table because it comes up everywhere in mathematics both arithmetic and geometry. In geometry-- multiplication is area of rectangle and a special rectangle is the square. Both are 4 sided closed figures but what makes the rectangle and square special is that both have 4 of 90 degree angles inside them. A rectangle has a pair of two sides equal in length and a square is a rectangle but that all 4 sides are equal in length.
The a rectangle from your graph paper and from that rectangle draw a square inside. Such as what I am doing with overhead projector.
Area inside the rectangle is length times width and is a reflection of the amount of smaller squares inside the rectangle. So the area of a rectangle that is 3 by 5 means it has 15 smaller squares inside that rectangle and we say the rectangle is 15 square centimeters if the small squares are in centimeters.
Since all the 4 sides of a square are the same, we multiply the side times side to find the area inside. A 5 by 5 square is 5x5 = 25, meaning it has 25 square centimeters inside, or 25 smaller squares each a centimeter side. Shown all of this on the overhead projector.
The overhead projector, if a school can afford it, is far superior to a blackboard and chalk, because with the overhead the teacher comes prepared with slides to make a full teaching hour already prepared.
Now say I wanted to graph a rectangle whose side was length 0.2 and height was 0.3 that included the origin as 0 as its corner. That rectangle four corners would be (0,0), (.2, 0), (.2, .3), (0, .3). These are called Cartesian coordinate points named after Descartes, a French mathematician.
.
.
.
.4
.3-----
.2 |
.1 |
0 .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, . . . x-axis
Now graph the these rectangles (0,0) (2,0), (2, 3), (0,3) and this rectangle (1,0),(4,0), (4,1), (1,1).
Now let me draw another rectangle to the one drawn above of 0.2 length and 0.3 width. For I want to teach a lesson that plagued and bothered me throughout High School and probably bothers every student of math at sometime in their life. The fact that multiplication of fractions ends up with an answer that is smaller than either multipliers. For 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.06.
It is for this fact of multiplication by fractions that I usually pick numbers in my examples or exercises of numbers larger than 1, knowing the young students have a difficult time in their minds of registering that the answer is smaller than either of the multipliers.
And now look at this rectangle (0,0) (2,0), (2, 3), (0,3), similar to the 0.2 by 0.3 rectangle on the graph paper of 10 Grid. The rectangle area is length times width. Its length is 2 if we call the x-axis a length and its width is 3 if we call the y-axis the width.
So we have the rectangle 2 by 3, with the 2 along the x-axis and the 3 upward on the y-axis. Its area, no doubt, is 2 x 3 = 6. While the area of rectangle 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.06.
Can we make some geometry distinction as to why multiplication by fractions of 0.2 and 0.3 ends up with a result that is smaller than the multipliers themselves??
If we look at the graph paper of those two rectangles --- the 0.2 by 0.3 rectangle and the 2 by 3 rectangle we notice that there are 6 small squares out of the 100 squares from 1 to 1 and that 0.06 are 6 of those tiny squares, for, 0.06 means 6 out of 100. While the 2 by 3 rectangle has 6 of the squares of 1 by 1 each holding 100 tiny squares so that 6 large squares 1 by 1 holds 100 makes for 600 tiny squares.
In this geometry textbook for High School I am going to write a lesson just on the fact that young minds have a difficult time of not falling into the trap what we call a conundrum or a paradox of multiplication by fractions.
When we have Counting Numbers only starting with 1 and do multiplication with these numbers, our multiplication problem ends with the answer being equal to the multipliers or greater than the multipliers. For example 1 x 4 = 4 that the answer 4 is equal to 4 but greater than 1. When we have 2 x 4 = 8, our answer is greater than 2 and greater than 4.
But, when our multipliers are fractions, our answer is always smaller than either of the multipliers. For example 0.1 x 0.4 = 0.04, or the case of 0.2 x 0.4 = 0.08.
It bothered me when I was young and in High School and is one of those things that our minds slowly mature into understanding it. To understand it so you do not make a mistake. What I did in High School is go slow on multiplication if it involved fractions. And the rules of algebra helped in knowing where the decimal point should go.
Only true numbers of mathematics, Decimal Grid Numbers, for the Decimal Grid Numbers come from Scientific Notation which is this.
1
10 = 10^1
100 = 10^2
1000 = 10^3
10^4
10^5
etc etc
And going the other direction.
...., 10^-5, 10^-4, 10^-3 = 0.001, 10^-2 = 0.01, 10^-1 = 0.1, 1
3) Introduction to the equation in mathematics.
What does Equal mean in math? And then what does Equation mean. One of the most famous equations of all is E = mc^2 which can be reduced to E = m times c times c, where E is energy and m is the mass of object and c is the speed of light. Energy on one side of the equation and mass times speed of light times speed of light on the other side of the equation. Knowing the laws of arithmetic and algebra I can rewrite that as E/c = mc. Or I could rewrite it as E/cc = m. Or I could rewrite it as c = E/mc.
Equal means the very same is on one side as the very same as the other side. 4 = 4 and 2=2 but 1=/= 2.
Another concept similar to equal is equivalence, for example 3/6 is equivalent to 1/2 but not equal. Once we reduce 3/6, by dividing out a 3 in the numerator and denominator we have equality. For a cherry pie with cream on top if in 6 parts is different from a cherry pie with cream on top cut in only 2 pieces. This is why equivalence is not the same as equality.
A Balancing Beam is often used in teaching what an equation is. You have a left side of the equal sign and a right side. If the left side equals the right side we think of the left side of a two dish balancing beam and the needle rests in the middle meaning equal weight.
We can call these properties as axioms of Arithmetic and compare them to the axioms of geometry such as 2 points determine a line segment.
Commutative Axiom A+B = B+A
Associative Axiom (A+B) + C = A + (B+C)
Distributive Axiom c(A+B) = cA + cB
The commutative and associative properties tell us it does not matter what order you add numbers for your final answer will come out the same, no matter what order you added the terms.
The distributive property tells us when we multiply a equation we have to multiply every add and subtract term in the equation by the same constant c number. For example, 3 + 7 =10, when we multiply every term by 2 we retain the equation equality. (2)3 + (2)7 = (2)10. Every term of addition and subtraction in a equation has to be multiplied by the constant c in order to keep equality of the equation.
So I have to teach young students the _Terms_ of an equation and then apply it later in a chapter on Pythagorean Triples.
I probably will write a Textbook on Arithmetic-Algebra but not for several years in the future. These geometry books have taken their toll out of me.
I would most definitely correct the ignoramus idea of the Quintic and the Quadratic Equation memorization that students are put through that horrible and ugly chapters of Algebra. Let me briefly see how much time Stewart, Redlin, Watson in their 4th edition, COLLEGE ALGEBRA, 2004 spend on that nonsense of quadratic equations and going up to quintic.
For you see, if mathematicians had a ___ Logical Brain____ they would see they missed an important axiom. The axiom that says all Equations must have at all times a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number all alone on the right-side of the Equation at all times.
This nonsense of having a zero all alone on the rightside of the equation has sent many who call themselves mathematicians, sent them into one of the ugliest and dark caveman periods in math history.
Take for example the __invalid equation___ 6(y^2)x^5 + 6(y^2) = 0. Here I could divide by 6 leaving the original equation to be (y^2)x^5 + (y^2) = 0. Now I divide by y^2 leaving the equation be x^5 + 1 = 0. Telling me nothing of what y is, all because you have a 0 on the rightside the gets rid of vital information.
On the other hand suppose we have the ___valid equation___ 6(y^2)x^5 + 6(y^2) = 3 for 3 is a positive nonzero decimal grid number all alone at all times on the rightside of the equation. Here we can divide by 6 and achieve a new valid equation (y^2)x^5 + (y^2) = 0.5 because 0.5 is a positive nonzero decimal grid number all alone on the rightside of the equation at all times. Now, I could divide by (y^2) but it would do me no further benefit in solving for y or x. One solution is that when x= 1 that y = square root of 0.25 = 0.5. So we have 0.5^2 + 0.5^2 does indeed equal 0.5
Not as bad as I thought for Stewart, Redlin, Watson, for they waste the time of students from page 72 to 148 which is 76 pages.
Remember the math nonsense that went on in High School where they had you memorize -b + or - the square root of b^2 -4ac all over 2a, as the solutions to any and every quadratic equation. Remember that time waste, because negative numbers do not exist in truth math and that 0 on the rightside of an equation ruins the equation????? And then the game played by Tartaglia, Cardano, Viete to solve cubic, quartic, quintic equations for a general solution.
Sadly, these gentlemen should have spent more time studying Logic than playing nonsense math games.
If you have an Axiom that says a valid equation always has a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number all alone at all times on the right side of the equation, you will not waste time of your life on moron algebra.
For example, take the quadratic equation 3x^2-5x = 1. Now you could use your memorized silly formula and get 1.847 along with -0.18, a negative number which does not exist. Or you could use the more simple AP true math method, where no negative number ever exists.
So I look at 3x^2 -5x = 1 and ask myself, what happens when x= 1 and I get 3 -5 and I know 1 is not the answer, then I look at 2 and have 12-10 and so I overshot, so my answer is somewhere between 1 and 2.
Math, when given the correct Axiom eliminates the nonsense of negative numbers and having a equation that equals nothing-- zero. Professors in Old Math never seemed to ask the question or bothered their mentality to think equaling nothing is moron thinking. And so we had more time wasting fools of Abel, Jacobi, and Galois working on quintic. When what they really needed was a nice hot bath after dinner and read up on Logic how to think straight and think clearly, knowing that having 0 all alone on the rightside of the equation is moron math.
Should math break apart at the Quintic??? No, true math is always flowing smoothly, organic, like organic food and natural and good for you.
When you have a Quintic placed in front of AP, he solves it in a minute or less.
x^5 + 2x^4 + 3x^3 - 4x^2 - 5x = 8
So, try 1 and we have 1 +2+3 -4 -5, no way
Try 2 and we have 32 + 32 +24 -16 -10 tells me the answer lies between 2 and 1, so next try 1.5
And the AP method stretches throughout all polynomials far far beyond Quintic.
Math often is a breeding ground for kooks and naive naivety to fester and grow, with not a single sensible person in the crowd to say--- stop, study Logic and think straight and think clearly. Math does not cut away at Quintic. Only morons of math cut away at quintic.
So in the chapter on Equation and equal, I need to reinforce that idea with the balancing beam analogy. And that Equations are made up of terms, terms of either addition or subtraction. And to keep the balancing beam equal, we have to add a new same term on both sides or subtract the same term on both sides.
While if we multiply by a constant, that every term on both sides of the equation have to be multiplied by that same constant. Terms of an equation are how many additions plus subtractions there are in a equation with a single decimal grid number positive and nonzero all alone on the rightside of the equation.
Notice that we can eliminate or disregard division because multiplication covers all of division. Suppose we wanted to divide by 10 every term, is the same as multiplying every term by 1/10.
Exercises
How many terms in the left-side of these equations? For a valid equation is defined as having a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number all alone at all times on the right-side of the equation and so there is only one term on the rightside.
a) 3 + 4 - 2 = 5
b) 10 +100 = 110
c) 1+2 -3 + 4 + 50 = 54
d) (3x2) + 11 = 17
e) (2x5x3) + 75 + (2x4) = 113
f) 10 -1 + (3.3x2.5) - 4 = 13.25
Add 2 to each of the equations above and what do you have?
Multiply by 2 to each of the equations above and what do you have?
Isaac Newton equals Isaac Newton. And Michael Faraday + Isaac Newton equals Michael Faraday + Isaac Newton. There are laws of algebra that allow us to say Michael Faraday + Isaac Newton = Isaac Newton + Michael Faraday. You will learn these are called commutative, associative and distributive laws. Associative with respect to multiplication is something like this 3 x 4 = 4 x 3. The order of addition or multiplication is not affected.
Here we have a formula of Y = mX + b rewritten as mX + b = Y.
A formula is a bit different from an equation in the fact that a formula, although it has an equal sign, that the formula seeks the right side of the equation and where you have nothing to manipulate on the right-side of the equation. A Function which you will learn later is a formula but it relates specifically to a Graphing of x,y,z axis. A function is a specialized formula. I often write a function without an equal sign as this Y--> mX+b where the arrow means "Y is formed from mX+b".
One of the most important of all equations in mathematics is the polynomial equation. You learned it as the quadratic equation such as x^2 + 5x = 24. Which can be solved by (x-3)(x+8) and since no negative numbers ever exist in math or the world, that the only solution to that equation is 3. For 3^2 + 5*3 = 24.
In true mathematics, no negative number exists because, like in real life, and in physics reality is only positive reality. There are no negative zebras in a herd of zebras. There are no negative atoms. There are no negative planets or stars.
Old Math ran into a problem of crackpot crankery. They took subtraction far beyond its truth in the world. Perhaps they should have called it Remove rather than subtract. If they called it remove. Well, you cannot ever remove more than what exists. So say you wanted to subtract 10 from 4, and Old Math being kook math would say -6 is the answer. But -6 has no reality. If you wanted to remove 10 zebras but only 4 exist, then you do not end up with -6 zebras. So negative numbers is an example of crackpot crankery.
Bad algebra in Old Math affected not only algebra but affected geometry also. When you do subtraction, you can only subtract when there is __at least___that amount present to subtract.
One of the reasons mathematics spent centuries on doing polynomial solutions such as quadratic equations, cubic equations like x^3 + 2x^2 + x = 5 and quartic and quintic algebra, is that they were looking for solutions in general but they made a big mistake in not knowing a few important laws of algebra. A equation of math must always have a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number at all times on the right side of the equation all alone. And the law that you cannot subtract (I prefer to call it remove) more than what is available to remove.
If Old Math had known that about equations, they would not have wasted over 3 centuries on solutions of polynomial equations in general. And the AP method of plug-in is fast method that covers all polynomials.
4) Introduction to the point, straightline segment and plane-2nd dimension, the Plane Geometry.
Plane geometry is geometry done on a plane and is 2nd dimension, the x and y axis as we first learned on sheet of graph paper is 2nd dimension. Most of Physics is done in 2D because functions are mostly 2D and calculus is mostly 2D which you will learn later and in college if you pursue math.
Now it is always good to start a subject with an experiment. For the truth of experiments are more valuable than what goes on inside a brain-mind. In physics, the highest truths are experiments, and what goes on in the brain-mind is secondary.
So get three pencils of about the same length. They do not have to be the same length, just approximately.
Now arrange the 3 pencils to form a Triangle and ask yourself, are they in the same one and only one plane??? Yes, they are in the same plane. Now try to manipulate the 3 pencils to form a triangle but where the triangle is in 2 different planes. Is it possible??? No.
But, now take those 3 pencils to form a quadrilateral, a 4 sided closed figure. Here I really need 4 pencils but I cannot hold them together with my 2 hands, so I just imagine the 4th pencil.
And sure enough, I am able to form a 4 sided quadrilateral (a square and rectangle are quadrilaterals) for which 2 different planes are involved. This experiment proves that all triangles have to reside in one unique plane. While quadrilaterals can exist in 2 different planes.
The x-axis and y-axis in graphing forms a Plane.
So we have a point on graph paper where two ruling lines meet in a point and notice especially every point is surrounded by empty space. And today we talk about point, straightline-segment and line in general and where lines lie and rest in a plane.
Is it necessary for me to say Straightline for by saying straightline is there any other type of line??? The answer is no, that there are no other types of lines. In Old Math they teach what are called curved-lines. Old Math thought that Space and Geometry was a continuum where no empty space exists and that one point is surrounded by more points, an infinity of more points so that No Empty Space Exists.
This is traditionally how Old Math High School geometry starts, with point, line-segment and plane. However, since physics experiments starting 1900 with Quantum Mechanics shows all of Physics to be Discrete geometry for "quantum" means discrete, and that Space is mostly empty space, yet mathematicians ignored and never corrected the mistakes of Old Math. We started this book with talking about true numbers of mathematics, numbers with empty space surrounding the point number.
Curved lines do not exist because they are chains of tiny straightlines, so small that your eyes cannot detect they are tiny straightlines linked together.
Euclid in Ancient Greek times started the deductive science of geometry. What I mean by deductive is that you deduce new truths from given known truths. And Euclid made axioms which are considered true without proof. And from those axioms, Euclid used them to further find more truths. The Ancient Greeks needed tools though to find these new truths, and some of the tools they used was flexible thin wire for measuring distance and compass and ruler. They made markings on the ruler equally spaced.
There was an incredible devise found call the Antikythera Mechanism that was found on a Ancient Greek ship-wreck. It is thought that the devise was made by the physicist Archimedes of Siracusa. It is the world's first computer used to keep track of the stars in the sky for navigation of ships, and the devise was made of cogs and wheels of brass. By examining this devise we know the level of engineering with metals in Ancient Greek times was a highly sophisticated level. So that the Ancient Greeks had thin wire such as gold wire and had metal compass and metal rulers.
How do you make a thin wire from metal? While metal is malleable and ductile meaning you can hammer it into a thin plane and then cut strips of the metal to make wire.
So the Plane in Geometry can be seen as a plane of metal that was hammered flat. The line or line-segment of geometry can be seen as cutting a strip of the metal plane and then rolling that strip to make it round and thin into a wire. Gold and copper are especially good at rolling into a wire and because gold is so expensive, few gold wires made by Ancient Greeks survived.
Archimedes of Ancient Greek probably had gold wires for measuring length and flexible enough to lay upon a drawn circle and measure the distance of arc-length of circle compared to the diameter of circle, coming up with something like 3.1 as a crude pi.
And here we have the idea of a Plane of geometry is made up of Line-Segments. The area of a rectangle in that plane would be length times width and instead of area being smaller squares, the area is strips of line-segments, that later is seen as smaller squares.
So the first two Axioms by the Ancient Greeks goes like this in New Math, even though they are translated from Ancient Greeks of Euclid.
Axiom 1: Points exist and are not empty space and points and empty space fill up the plane. Points have the smallest nonzero length and the smallest nonzero width in the Plane. In Decimal 10 Grid the smallest nonzero number is 0.1 and we cannot make the point a length of 0.1, so we go to the next higher grid which is the 100 Grid for its smallest nonzero number of 0.01. But some people like engineers or scientists need an even smaller length for the point and go to the 1000 Grid of its smallest nonzero number being 0.001. So a Point in 10 Grid with accuracy has a length of 0.001 and a width of 0.001 and if the point is in 3rd dimension the point has a depth of 0.001.
Axiom 2: Two points in the plane determine a unique Line Segment. As we connect those two points with a straightedge ruler.
5) Introduction to the angle in geometry.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 6, 2025, 5:26:00 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
Well I just finished book #347 discussing how I plot the coordinate points in discrete geometry of a circle. Only because in past decades I was nervous about there being so few points on a circle. And as a result of book #347, I am going back to discuss plotting points on straightlines Y --> mx + b.
And have come to the majestic and beautiful conclusion that I can prove Continuous geometry and Reals are fake by comparing Discrete Geometry.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 6, 2025, 10:03:10 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
So get out a sheet of Graph Paper and count 100 squares on the X-axis for that is going to be the 1st Quadrant x-axis of 10Grid. The first point is (0,0) and the last point is (10,0).
The True Numbers of Mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, known for their Discrete Space as they have holes and empty space between numbers. Old Math has the ignorant Reals as their numbers. They covet the Reals for continuity. But Old Math was so stupid in the 20th and 21st century as to never notice that in Physics was going all to Quantum Physics, while the fools of math went for ever more and stronger continuity. You do know that Quantum means Discrete. Quantum Mechanics started in the year 1900 with Max Planck making sense of physics. While the fools and idiots of math such as Cohen dove even deeper into continuity.
No wonder no-one in Old Math could ever do a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, because you need Discrete Geometry and the numbers to be the Decimal Grid Numbers to perform a geometry proof of FTC.
So, today we have this Graph Paper before us and 10 Decimal Grid Numbers. This set is 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.1, ... 9.9, 10.0.
Now, focus on the coordinate point (10, 0.1) and connect that by a line segment (0,0) to (10, .1) and with the x-axis forms a angle. That forms the smallest angle possible in the 10 Grid Geometry. In the 100 Grid, the smallest angle would be (0,0) to (100, 0.01) with the x-axis.
Now, the question is. As we connect (0,0) to (10, .1) does this line intersect with any other coordinate points of 10 Grid???? The answer is no. There is only empty space from (0,0) to (10, .1) in 10 Grid other than the two endpoints.
But now, we include the 100 Grid into our line. And how many coordinate points are on our line segment now from (0,0) to (10, .1)???
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 7, 2025, 12:33:09 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
For the moment let us talk only about the coordinate points on line (0,0) (10, .1) in 10 Grid and skip the angle analysis for later. It being the smallest angle possible in 10 Grid other than 0 degree angle. The largest possible angle in 10 Grid using the (0,0) as end point is of course the 90 degree angle with X and Y axes. So what is the largest possible angle other than 90 degrees??? And that would be (0,0) (.1, 10). Taking the slope of a line to be dy/dx we have the smallest, other than 0 be 0.01 degree while the largest other than 90 degree is 10/ (1/10) is 100 degrees. And this is why we talk about angles later, for we would expect this angle to be 90 subtract 0.01 degree or 89.99 degree. And when I get to talking about angles, here is where I can teach why Trigonometry has only three Rational number values of 1/1, 0, and 1/2, and why sine and cosine have a value of 1/2, a Rational value at 30 and 60 degrees, which Old Math could never explain why sine and cosine at 30 and 60 degrees emerge as Rational numbers 1/2.
So now with the Amount of Coordinate Points in geometric figures when Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics, not that garbage called Reals.
So we have only two coordinate points for the line connecting (0,0) (10, .1) in 10 Grid, the rest is empty space. What happens when we look at this same line in 10 Grid but include the 100 Grid. We look at only the added points from the 100 Grid to our line segment (0,0) (10, .1) whose slope is in Y --> mx + b, a slope of 0.01 for the "m" in mx + b.
By including the 100 Grid to our 10 Grid we increase the coordinate points by (1, 0.01) (2, 0.02) (3, 0.03) (4, 0.04) (5, 0.05) (6, 0.06) (7, 0.07) (8, 0.08) (9, 0.09). So, before, our line segment had only two coordinate points in 10 Grid and by including the 100 Grid for that segment it now has nine more coordinate points for a total of 11 coordinate points for the line segment. Of course if we extended this line segment through the entire 100 Grid we have 101 coordinate points for line Y --> (0.01)X starting at origin (0,0) and passing through (10, .1). For the last coordinate point is 1/ 100 =0.01.
For the 10 Grid by itself, the 100 Grid adds 9 new points. For the 1000 Grid would add 9 new points to our line segment in 10 Grid, and each higher Grid would add 9 new points.
This is similar to the circle which adds 8 new points with every new higher Grid added.
Now let us examine a flat straight line segment in 10 Grid such as Y --> 3, and I could have done it with just the x-axis, Y --> 0, but I want to teach young students and that may confuse them if I chose the x-axis.
So our line function goes flat and straight across on Y, parallel to the x-axis. How many coordinate points of intersection? Well every number in the 10 Grid has a coordinate point, (0, 3) (.1, 3) (.2, 3) etc. All 101 numbers in 10 Grid are on this flat line. Yet, the line segment still is not solid but had empty space in between one coordinate point to the next coordinate point.
6) Introduction to the triangle in geometry, and the three types of triangles, (1) right-triangle, (2) scalene, (3) obtuse, and include the isosceles right-triangle.
Triangles are the smallest closed figure in geometry-- think about that, for if you have two line segments, you cannot make a closed figure, you need at minimum 3 line segments to make a closed figure in geometry.
When I studied geometry in High School, much of the time was spent on rectangles, squares and triangles. And the geometry figures most often used in physics is the right-triangle and the rectangle and square. Why are they the most often used figures of geometry?? The answer is simple, for electricity and magnetism are always together, they exist together and they are always 90 degrees from one another.
If you take a Rectangle and draw the line that connects the diagonal, the two triangles formed are right-triangles each with a 90 degree angle and the diagonal is the hypotenuse of both right triangles. The same thing happens with the square, only the two right-triangles are isosceles right-triangles, meaning two sides of the right triangle are equal in length.
Draw them on your graph paper.
Triangle definition
-----------------------
A triangle is a 3 sided (3 line-segments) _closed figure_. It has 3 vertices (3 points), and the sum of its interior angles is always added up to be 180 degrees. The area of a triangle is (1/2) base times height. And that area makes sense with right-triangles because they are 1/2 of a rectangle area or 1/2 of a square area.
However it is not easy to find the height of some triangles such as obtuse triangles.
Right-Triangle definition
------------------------------
A Right-Triangle is a triangle with one of the three interior angles being exactly 90 degrees. The side opposite the 90 degrees is called the hypotenuse and the other two sides are called the legs. An Isosceles Right-Triangle has the 90 degree angle but has two of its legs the same length.
Scalene-Triangle definition
---------------------------------
A Scalene triangle has all of its 3 interior angles be less than 90 degrees. The most famous scalene triangle is the equilateral triangle where all 3 sides have the same length and all three interior angles are 60 degrees.
Obtuse-Triangle definition
--------------------------------
A Obtuse triangle has one of its 3 interior angles be greater than 90 degrees. Sometimes it is hard to find the height of the obtuse-triangle to determine its area.
On your graph paper, draw each of these three types of triangles and label the vertex points. Also draw the isosceles right triangle and the equilateral triangle. With a protractor measure the angles of the 3 interior angles of each of your triangles.
7) Pythagorean Theorem.
There is a famous math theorem in geometry, for a theorem is a deduced truth, by deduction we arrive at a theorem. We could have called it a deduction but instead we call it a theorem. One of the most famous of all geometry theorems is the Pythagorean theorem and do you know why it is so famous??? It is because without the Pythagorean theorem the science of shape as geometry would not be a science at all and that geometry would be taught in Art class, not in math class.
Pythagoras in Ancient Greek times discovered this theorem. And Euclid wrote his discovery in Euclid's book called "Elements". This book was so good of geometry that it was used as a geometry textbook, called Euclidean Geometry, for some 2,000 years after Euclid had written it.
There is a flaw in Euclid's axioms as he neglected to put in a axiom (some call them postulates) that using tools such as compass, ruler, protractor and graph paper can be part of the proof itself. That proofs need not be just fancy language, but can be quick and easy as using tools.
How did Pythagoras discover his famous theorem that a right-triangle with sides A, B, H where H is hypotenuse and A, B are the two legs. That A^2 + B^2 = H^2.
How did Pythagoras discover this important fact of mathematics?
I believe he discovered it by noticing that if you had a length of 3 and of 4 forming the legs of a right angle, that the hypotenuse was another counting number 5.
Pythagoras had rulers with measured distance of ropes with evenly spaced marks. He had one rope with a length of 3, another with length of 4 and formed a 90 degree angle between them. Then he had a third rope with length 5 or more and found that 3, 4, 5 formed what is called a Pythagorean Triple. These are three whole counting numbers such that A^2 + B^2 = H^2.
Here is a list of the Primitive Pythagorean Triples from 3 to 25.
(3,4,5)
(5,12,13)
(7,24,25)
(8,15,17)
(9,40,41)
(11,60,61)
(12,35,37)
(13,84,85)
(15,112,113)
(16,63,65)
(17,144,145)
(19,180,181)
(20,21,29)
(20,99,101)
(21,220,221)
(23,264,265)
(24,143,145)
(25,312,313)
Now they are called Primitive Pythagorean Triples (PPT) because if you take (3,4,5) and multiply by 2 you get a new triple of (6,8,10) which is a Derived Pythagorean Triple, not a Primitive triple. Or you can divide by 2 and get a derived triple of (3/2, 2, 5/2) which is another derived triple. In short you can multiply a Primitive Pythagorean Triple by any Decimal Grid Number call it N and form a derived triple.
As an exercise: multiply the above PPT by 2 and see what you get. Then multiply the above by 0.1 and see what you get.
As another exercise: Take your 10 Decimal Grid graph paper and think of each small square as a counting number. So you have 100 numbers along the x-axis and 100 along the y-axis, not counting 0. Now, graph all
these PPT.
(3,4,5)
(5,12,13)
(7,24,25)
(8,15,17)
(9,40,41)
(11,60,61)
(12,35,37)
(13,84,85)
(16,63,65)
(20,21,29)
The Proof of Pythagorean Theorem comes from Euclid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unknown if Pythagoras actually proved his theorem but it is certain that Euclid found a proof in what is often called the "windmill picture" of a right triangle in center and three squares one for each side. But Euclid goes through a-lot of words and language to make the proof argument.
Instead, I like better the proof of 2 diagrams.
Pythagorean Theorem: starting statement (proposition) :: given any right triangle with its three sides A,B,H, where H is the longest side--the hypotenuse, that we have A^2 + B^2 = H^2 in all right triangles this is true.
Proof:: We draw a square whose sides are all A+B long, and inside that square sits another square whose side is c long. So we have two squares, one inside the other and we have 4 right triangles inside the bigger square.
Wikipedia has a animation of this proof and I can only settle upon a ascii-art of that proof.
_______________
| H ' H |A
| ,|
| |
|' |B Now we cut those out and rearrange into
| H H |
|__________,___ |
B A
_______________
| | |
| | B^2 |
| | |
|____|__________|
| A^2 | |
|____|_________ |
Without the Pythagorean Theorem, geometry as a science would not be mathematics but taught in art class.
For the Pythagorean Theorem connects all figures to numbers of mathematics. The squares on all three sides of a right-triangle obey A^2 + B^2 = H^2.
All of Physics is electromagnetism and electricity is always oriented 90 degrees from magnetism.
I cannot tell you enough, how writing a logical textbook on Geometry draws out the most of logic within oneself. Like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, having to fill in missing parts and pieces.
So in the chapter of Pythagorean theorem I need the fact that you can multiply all the terms of an equation by a constant and retain equality.
For instance the PPT of 3,4,5 multiply by 2 is 6,8,10 which retains equality for A^2 + B^2 = H^2. Or the multiplication of 11,60,61 by 0.1 as 1.1, 6, 6.1 retains equality of A^2 + B^2 = H^2.
8) Introduction to dimension in geometry, the 3 and only 3 dimensions in the world, 3rd dimension, and Solid Geometry.
So our graph paper is 2D, 2nd dimension and we notice that a line like the x-axis is 1 dimension. How did we get 2D??? We put a perpendicular line to the point 0 on x-axis line, and this perpendicular line forms the y-axis to get us 2D. So how do we get 3D when we start with 2D??? We do the same thing-- form a perpendicular line starting at point (0,0) in 2D. This perpendicular line to the Plane x-y plane is called the z-axis.
Here in ascii-art I have attempted to show how a perpendicular line to the x-y plane gives us the z-axis and 3rd dimension.
y z
| /
| /
|/______x-axis
There is a dimension higher than 2D and is 3D, the Space we live in is 3D and there is no dimension larger than 3D because you need a right-angle sticking out of 3D to get to 4D, but when you stick a right angle out of 3D, you get just more 3D. Experiment always is superior than mind thoughts. Some people think time is the 4th dimension and stupidly think 4D exists as a time dimension, but then they never took Logic in school which tells you Experiment supercedes imagination.
9) Introduction to square and rectangle and right-trapezoid in 2D; and cube and rectangular-box in 3D.
Rectangle is probably the most common shape we see every day. Our buildings, our furniture, our cars, books, boxes are rectangles.
In physics, calculus is the most important tool that math offers physics, and the calculus is based on the Rectangle as the cells of the integral of calculus. Something you will learn when you take Freshman calculus in College.
But the definition of square, and rectangle comes from the idea of a quadrilateral in 2nd dimension plane. A quadrilateral is a 4 sided closed figure. Remember that a triangle is a 3 sided closed figure.
Now a precaution in the definition of Quadrilateral, a closed 4 sided figure, for you can have a quadrilateral that involves more than one plane. Experiment, get 3 pencils and imagine the 4th pencil. Put two pencils together forming a single plane that contains them both. and now stick the 3rd pencil at a off angle to the other 2 pencils and imagine the 4th pencil joined up to the other 3 to form a closed figure. A closed figure that happens to be not all in 1 plane but in several planes.
So, we must be careful when we talk about quadrilaterals. Whether we mean a quadrilateral that is all in one single plane or whether we mean a quadrilateral in different planes.
In this book, the square, rectangle and right-trapezoid all are quadrilaterals in a single 1 plane.
There are many many types of quadrilaterals in plane geometry but the most important ones are square, rectangle and the right-trapezoid.
So what distinguishes these 3 quadrilaterals from all other quadrilaterals? It is the right-angle, the 90 degree angle. The interior four angles of a square and rectangle are all four of them as 90 degree angles. The right-trapezoid has two of its four interior angles as 90 degrees.
A square is a specialized form of a rectangle. In a rectangle the opposite sides pair up as equal in length, while in a square all four sides are equal in length--- a specialized rectangle is the square.
Here are ascii art drawings with bottom left out, of Rectangle.
___
| |
Square
__
| |
Right Trapezoid
____
| \
For homework, on your graph paper, draw three squares and label them with coordinate points, and draw 3 rectangles and label them with coordinate points and draw three right-trapezoids and label them with coordinate points. As I will now demonstrate on this overhead projector of what your homework assignment is to look like.
Cubes and Rectangular-box in 3D
---------------------------------------------
Cubes and Rectangular-boxes are very familiar geometry shapes in our life, for they are boxes.
Definition of Cube and Rectangular box goes like this. In 3rd dimension a cube and rectangular box have 6 faces, 8 vertices, and 12 sides, but most important feature is that they have 8 interior angles all 8 of which are right angles of 90 degrees. A cube is just a special kind of rectangular box where all 12 sides are of equal length.
In Plane Geometry, 2D, the square is the analog of cube and the rectangle the analog of rectangular box.
In Plane Geometry, that is 2D, the perimeter of a square is 4 times one of its sides. While the perimeter of a rectangle is 2 times its length and 2 times its width. The area of square is side times side, or side^2. The area of rectangle is length times width. And in Plane Geometry area is measured by how many squares the figure contains.
For example, a square with side 5 has a perimeter of 4 x 5 = 20. And if this were in meters the perimeter is 20 meters as we walk around the square. The area of this square is 5 x 5 = 25 and if in meters would be 25 square meters area.
For a rectangle that is 6 long and 3 width its perimeter is 2 x 6 plus add on 2 x 3 which comes to 12+ 6 = 18 and if in meters would be a distance of 18 meters. A walk around of this rectangle would be 18 meters. The area of this rectangle is 6 x 3 for it is length x width and that equals 18 and if in meters our rectangle is 18 square meters, where we can actually count 18 unit squares make up the interior area of this rectangle.
Cube surface area is 6 faces and so we must multiply 6 times whatever the area of one face is and that would be side x side. So the surface area of Cube is 6(side x side). The volume of the cube would naturally by side x side x side = side^3. All volumes in geometry are denoted by how many unit-cubes fit inside the given figure of attention.
Rectangular Box surface area, is like a cube in that both have 6 faces. However, unlike a cube, the length and width and depth can all be different numbers. And so of the 6 faces there are 3 pairs of identical faces. And we can denote that as with 2(length x width) + 2(length x depth) + 2( width x depth) = surface area of rectangular box.
The volume of Rectangular Box is much easier to solve for it is merely length x width x depth = volume.
Suppose we had a Cube whose side is 3 cm, what is its surface area and what is its volume? Answer: 6(3 x 3) = 54 square cm. Volume is 3 x 3 x 3 = 27 cubic cm. Notice that we end up having to say how many unit-squares are in the figure of surface area, and how many unit-cubes in the figure for volume.
10) Introduction to the parallelogram and rhombus and kite.
Parallelograms are similar to rectangles and easily transformed into rectangles.
Like the square, rectangle and right-trapezoid the parallelogram and rhombus and kite are Quadrilaterals.
Again what is a quadrilateral? Let us review this again, for the quadrilateral is a Closed figure of 4 sides. But a quadrilateral can be tricky in that it can be in several planes, and not just one single plane. Again, get out 3 pencils and form a square in 3D where the square resides not in one single plane but rests in several planes of 3rd dimension.
In this book when I say Quadrilateral, I mean 4 sided Closed figures all resting in one single plane.
What is different and what is the same-- between square, rectangle, and that of parallelogram, rhombus?
As I draw a square, rectangle on the overhead projector then a parallelogram and rhombus. You at your seat do the same with your graph paper. Remember we use graph paper over and over again by erasing the pencil marks previously. We want to save trees of waste and abuse.
Notice the difference in a square and rectangle is that both have 4 right angles of 90 degrees but the sides of the square are all the same length. And both square and rectangle have opposite sides parallel.
Parallel means that if you raise a perpendicular from one side to the other side, it is perpendicular there also.
Now the parallelogram and the rhombus have no interior right angle. But the opposite sides of the parallelogram and rhombus are parallel.
A rhombus compared to a parallelogram is like the square compared to a rectangle. For the square is just a fancy rectangle where all 4 sides are equal. A rhombus is a fancy parallelogram with all 4 sides are equal.
What does it mean for two sides to be parallel?? It means, get out your ruler and draw a perpendicular from one side to the opposite side and you will find that the new line is perpendicular on that opposite side.
Now draw the Right-Trapezoid. The opposite sides are parallel, but the other opposite sides are not parallel. Here I draw on the Overhead Projector showing you that in a Right-Trapezoid where opposite sides are not parallel.
Now we draw the Kite which is a quadrilateral in one plane. Run your parallel test on the opposite sides and determine if the opposite sides of a kite are parallel or not parallel.
Physics uses parallelograms for forces
--------------------------------------------------
There is an important rule in physics called the Parallelogram Rule and it involves vectors. We shall learn what vectors are in a later chapter. But for now let us say a vector is a straight line segment with a arrow at one tip of the straight line and the vector has magnitude by how long it is. Here is a picture of a vector
----------> and the arrow indicates the direction of motion and the length tells us the magnitude of force if it is a force vector.
Physics uses parallelograms if two forces are acting simultaneously at a point P.
force 2
/
/
P /______ force 1
Now if we complete this as a parallelogram we have this.
/ d/
/ d /
P /d_____/
And the diagonal denoted by d is the resultant force, force 3.
Transformation
-------------------
We are going to learn what "transformation" means in geometry.
For we are going to take the square and transform it into a rectangle. Then take the right-trapezoid and transform it into a rectangle. Then take the parallelogram and transform it into a rectangle. Then take the rhombus and transform it into a rectangle. Then take the kite and transform it into a rectangle.
Watch me do this on the overhead projector, then I want you to make small right-trapezoid, parallelogram, rhombus and kite and cut them out and transform them into a rectangle.
11) Introduction to the regular polygons and the circle is a many sided regular polygon.
Regular Polygons are closed straightline figures.
A definition of a Regular Polygon is a closed figure in a Single Plane, for which all of its sides are of equal length.
The most simple Regular Polygon is a triangle, the equilateral triangle.
The second most simple Regular Polygon is the square, then comes a 5 sided, all 5 sides equal in length of the pentagon.
The best way to draw a Regular Polygon is by first drawing a circle with compass.
Using an overhead projector, watch me draw a circle. Then watch me take a flexible piece of wire and measure the arc length of the circumference of that circle. The distance around a circle of its arc in 1 revolution is called the circumference of the circle. So here with my flexible wire I measure that distance and find it to be 16 cm distance.
Now I proceed to draw in a 3-gon which is the equilateral triangle, then the 4-gon which is the square, then the 5-gon which is the pentagon.
So, for the 3-gon I need three points on the circle in which, when I connect them, they are equal in length. So taking 16cm and dividing it by 3 I get in Decimal 10 Grid, I get 16/3 = 5.3 in 10 Grid but more accurately in 100 Grid is 5.33. Now I measure off 5.33 on my flexible wire and put a crimp in the wire then lay it out on the circle and go around to make 3 marks on the circle where it is 5.33 in length. Now I connect up those 3 points on the circle with a ruler straightedge and have my equilateral triangle, a 3-gon.
I do the same for the square only this time dividing by 4 into 16 gives me an even answer of 4 cm. Next I do the same thing with the pentagon and divide 16 by 5 giving me 3.2 cm in length.
And I need not stop at pentagon a 5-gon, but can go up to however many sided regular polygon I want.
Notice though, that in this process of constructing a many sided Regular Polygon, that the sides become smaller and smaller as the higher the number of sides becomes. When we reach about a 100 sided regular polygon a 100-gon that our circle is in fact the regular polygon itself. In other words, a circle is a fiction figure for as we get into higher and higher polygons, the circle no longer exists but is tiny microscope straightline segments.
Max Planck in year 1900 announced Quantum Mechanics by saying that energy is discrete and comes in discrete packets, and no continuum or continuity. That Space needed empty space in between one number and the next number. The same situation occurs in geometry with Regular Polygons. The higher the number of sides of the regular polygon, then the more disappearing of the circle with its curved-arc and that at some point, such as a 100-gon, the circle disappears and what we have in view is a 100-gon.
12) Introduction to the fictions of circle, ellipse and oval in geometry, for no curves exist in geometry.
Circle, ellipse, oval and no curved figures exist for they are tiny straightlines strung together.
The first few axioms that give rise to modern Plane Geometry are that points exist and that points are separated from one another by empty space. And then we have the axiom that 2 points determine a Line Segment.
Those two axioms alone can prove that ___no curved line exists___.
Here is another example where professors of math without training in Logic, can believe in a contradiction.
So you have the two axioms that begin Plane-Geometry.
Axiom 1: Points in the plane have the smallest possible length and smallest possible width and in 3rd dimension have the smallest possible depth, and in between one point and another point is empty space.
Axiom 2: 2 Points determine a unique Line Segment that is drawn between the two points and has a length-distance for the two points.
So, given those starting axioms of Plane-Geometry we can easily prove that no Curved lines exist in the world.
Proof: Given a Plane and 2 points A, and B taken arbitrarily. We can connect those two points with straightedge ruler forming a Line Segment. We cannot under any construction, connect A with B by a curved or arc line segment. QED (this symbol QED means end of proof).
What this means is that the geometry figure of Circle, Ellipse, Oval are actually very tiny straight line segments, so tiny and fine you need a microscope to see they are tiny straightline segments.
Historical note when the Mathematics Community realizes that No Curve nor Arc in math exists!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now above I gave a proof from the Ancient Greek Euclid axioms that a circle or curve or arc in geometry do not exist. What exists is a string-of-fine-microscopic-straight-line-segments that take on the appearance of a smooth curve, even though the curve is nonexistent. Euclid wrote his geometry textbook about 300 BC and that would be 2025 + 300 = 2325 years ago. Sad that no mathematician between Euclid and AP could recognize that the first two axioms of Euclid-- what is a point and 2 points determine a line-segment. That no mathematician between Euclid and AP had enough marbles of logic in their head to realize that accepting those two axioms means a curve and arc are nonexistent. That a curve and arc are a string of tiny straight line segments. AP shows this contradiction of no curve and no circle exists from the proof above given in June-July 2025. But AP knew a long time ago, back in 2013, as AP was doing a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, that the derivative of calculus needs straightline segments for calculus to exist. And if math has curve or arc lines, would destroy calculus. You cannot have a calculus if a curve or arc line exists. Curves and arcs are a string of tiny microscopic line-segments.
What is a Circle, Ellipse, Oval as a many sided polygon?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So here on the Overhead Projector, I have illustrations of the Circle and Ellipse and the Oval.
They are all three of them as a long chain of straightline segments, equal in length, and strung together.
The line segments are so fine and small that our eyes see this circle as a smooth curve but in truth it is a 50-gon. A 50 tiny straightline segments in the shape of a circle.
Now as I divide this circle by a diameter going through the center of circle, I end up with 25 line segments on the top side of the circle and 25 line segments on the bottom half of the circle.
Now the Ellipse is a bent circle and the Oval is a bent ellipse.
Let us see how we bend the 25 line segments on the top of the circle and bend the 25 line segments on the bottom half of the circle to transform the 50-gon circle into being a 50-gon Ellipse, then bend the Ellipse into being a 50-gon Oval.
A Bead Demonstration of constructing a circle, ellipse, oval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we get 50 beads, small beads all uniform in size and pretend each bead is a tiny line segment.
Now we patiently form them on a level surface into a circle, a 50-gon described earlier. We measure its diameter with flexible wire and lay it upon our marked ruler in centimeters. Next we measure our circumference of circle with flexible wire and use the marked ruler for centimeters. Now we see if the numbers come close to Circumference divided by diameter comes close to the number 3.14.
Comes close to 3.14 which is pi in 100 Grid. Here we learn a concept that comes up in mathematics often. It is called Convergence. Every time we construct a circle and measure the circumference and diameter and divide we say we converge on the value of 3.1 then converge on 3.14 and then converge on 3.141. Pi is a constant but our measuring tools often give a approximation and so we say the measured value converges to pi = 3.141.
So we have our 50 bead 50-gon circle.
Now we are going to bend our circle of 50 beads to form a ellipse. And so with a piece of cardboard I am gently going to bend the top of the circle and the bottom of the circle, making the beads move inward top and bottom. For the sides of the beads I am gently going to scoot them outward until I begin to see a ellipse shape forming.
Definition of ellipse is a many sided closed polygon which has a center but also has 2 foci.
Definition of oval is a many sided closed polygon which is the joining together of __two different 1/2 ellipses__.
Now we are going to bend our ellipse by taking 1/2 of the beads at the center of the ellipse and elongating the beads on the other 1/2 of the ellipse to form an oval.
Now before we leave the circle we must learn the area of circle and its circumference formulas even though they are many sided polygons.
The circumference, some call it perimeter is found by multiplying the diameter by pi = 3.14 in 100 Grid, or 3.141 in 1000 Grid or in a higher Grid for more accuracy. To find this formula of Circumference = pi x diameter we take a flexible wire and experiment to see what pi constant is. And taking many different circles and measurement, by convergence we see the number 3.14 in 100 Grid is pi.
The area of a circle is found by dissecting a circle then reassembling it so that it begins to look like a rectangle, and we know the area of rectangle is length x width.
This is a sketch of what that dissection and reassembling looks like.
You have a given circle and you section it into 16 equal slices. One of the sections you further cut in half to make the two bookends of the formed rectangle.
|/\/\/\/\|
Where those are slices out of a circle, 16 slices stacked up forming a rectangle that is pi*r long and r wide for area of pi*r^2.
13) Introduction to the 3D solids the Regular Polyhedra.
Regular Polyhedra are 5 beautiful figures discovered in Ancient Greek times. They are 3rd dimensional and they are these. Here at home I have dice of all 5 of these regular polyhedron.
Faces Edges Vertices
1) Tetrahedron 4 6 4
2) Cube 6 12 8
3) Octahedron 8 12 6
4) Dodecahedron 12 30 20
5) Icosahedron 20 30 12
Kepler used them to help him figure out his 3 laws of astrophysics.
14) Introduction to the fictions of sphere, ellipsoid, ovoid.
Fictions of spheres, ellipsoids, ovoids when they are tiny straightline figures strung together so small the eyes detect them as smooth curves.
Remember when we studied circle, ellipse and oval and did a bead demonstration that they were not curves at all but tiny straightlines strung together to form the circle, ellipse and oval? Well that was done in 2nd dimension and now we do the sphere, ellipsoid and ovoid in 3rd dimension. And the same goes as before. There are no curves in geometry but ever tinier and finer straightline segments.
In the last chapter we did the Regular Polyhedron and notice as you get to the dodecahedron and the icosahedron, your 3D figures start to look like a sphere. That they start to converge into being a sphere.
But the regular polyhedron give out at 5 of them with the last one being the icosahedron. But that was Old Math Geometry where they had no infinity borderline.
When you have an infinity borderline at 1*10^604 with its Algebraic Completeness at 1*10^1208 (Algebraic completeness means simply that if you multiply any two numbers together from 0 to 1*10^604 that your product is a number in the completeness set).
If we include the infinity borderline we find we can have more than 5 regular polyhedron.
In his book GEOMETRY, 2nd edition, Harold Jacobs, 1987, page 567, he shows a sphere that is tiled by pyramids, tiny thin and slender pyramids that arise from the center of the sphere and their base is irregular shapes of many sided polygons.
When Old Math never had a infinity borderline, it could well say that the regular polyhedron that exist are 5 and only 5 such figures. But, when you have an infinity borderline, the number of regular polyhedron that exists is more than 5.
15) Introduction to the cylinder, cone, torus.
Torus, perhaps the most important shape in all of physics. But before we get to torus we have to discuss the cylinder and the cone.
Here on the table I have the three figures of cylinder, cone, and torus as plastic models.
I say the torus is the most important figure in physics because the Protons of Atoms are toruses. The Proton of atoms is in a torus form as a coil of wire in the Faraday law. While the electron of Atoms is the Muon that is in the shape of a bar magnet. The shape of a muon as bar magnet can also be a torus shape.
Faraday Law Demonstration in classroom.
-------------------------------------------------------
Most, probably every physics textbook shows the Faraday Law in a classroom demonstration. The textbook we had when in High School in the 1960s was PHYSICS, Haber-Schaim, Cross, Dodge, Walter, and sad to see it was too much over the heads of students and should have been used in 1st year college, not High School.
My first real education of the Faraday Law was in college using Halliday & Resnick showing a bar magnet thrust through a coil of wire connected to a Galvanometer.
Some call it "electromagnetic induction". I prefer to call it Faraday law.
So here today in classroom, I have set-up a Coil of copper wire connected to a Galvanometer and as I thrust this bar magnet through the coil, it shows the electricity produced.
All electric current comes from Faraday law. The movement of magnetism inside a wire loop, where the magnetism in a geometry sense is scraped of the magnet and formed into a electric current that moves in the wire.
What the Faraday Law has to do with a torus?
----------------------------------------------------------
In Physics, Atoms are made up of 3 rest-mass particles. The Light Wave has no rest-mass so we will not include light waves. The 3 rest-mass particles that compose all Atoms are the (1) proton, (2) muon, and (3) neutron.
Then proton is a torus. A torus is when you have a Coil of wire, like our Faraday law demonstration but in that demonstration our coil of copper wire was in a cylinder.
Here on the table is a coil of wire of iron in the form of a slinky toy.
The Muon of atoms is the electron of atoms and is stuck inside the proton torus.
So in our Demonstration where thrusting the bar magnet inside the coil that was a cylinder.
Let me define a cylinder and a cone of 3D.
Definition of cylinder as a rolled up plane that has a top as circle and a bottom base as circle.
Definition of cone as being a cylinder with base as a circle but top as a apex point.
I bring to class two plastic geometry figures one of the cylinder and the other as a cone, and pass them around for the class to touch and hold.
So, thrusting the bar magnet through the cylinder coil of wire we produce electric current in the wire as we scrape-off the magnetism of the bar magnet which then forms into an electric current in the wire.
Does anyone in classroom see the problem of why the Proton cannot be a cylinder but must be a torus????
Yes, anyone????
Student in back with hands raised: Because the torus allows the bar magnet to go around and around without banging into the cylinder end walls.
Teacher: Excellent.
The reason that the Proton is a torus, here I bend the cylinder slinky toy, bend it from being a cylinder so it is now a torus. And the muon inside the torus can go round and round forever, in perpetual motion producing new electricity, without ever having to bang or bump into a wall.
So I took the cylinder slinky toy and bent it around so that it forms a torus and if the Muon as bar magnet is inside the Proton torus going around at almost the speed of light, it will produce electricity energy. In fact, that is how the Sun and stars shine, for every proton inside the Sun is doing the Faraday law and creating electricity energy. Much of that energy is stored in neutrons as parallel plate capacitors. Your car battery is lead plates that are parallel. And some of the electrical energy is emitted out of the Sun in the form of sunshine.
Before I leave this topic of cylinder, cone, which you will study in more depth in Advanced Geometry, let me show you one of the problems that confused me when I was young and your age.
See this plastic model of a cylinder and the cone, where I can nest the cone inside the cylinder. Now it turns out that the volume of the cylinder is the height times the area of the base circle. A formula that looks like this Volume of Cylinder = height (pi x radius^2). The volume of the cone that fits snugly inside the cylinder has a formula of (1/3) height (pi x radius^2). Since the height and radius of base circle are the same in both cone and cylinder, we come to find out that it takes 3 of these cones to match the volume of the associated cylinder. To me, when I was a youngster like you, I found this hard to imagine that I needed 3 of these cones to match the associated cylinder. So what I did was a demonstration.
Cone, Cylinder Demonstration
----------------------------------------
I got the plastic cone associated with cylinder (associated means same height and same radius circle base). And proceeded to measure the height and divided by 3 and made a mark there. Then I filled the cone with water and poured it into the cylinder and expected the water level to match 1/3 of the height.
So let me demonstrate here in class with my plastic cone, plastic cylinder and a jug of water.
I measure the height of the cylinder in millimeters which is 58 mm. The height of the cone is also 58 mm. The diameter of base circle of both is 58 mm so the radius is 29 mm. That means the area of base circle is A = pi x r^2 is 3.14(29^2) is 3.14(841 mm) = 2640.7 mm.
The volume of cylinder is 58 x (2640.7mm) = 153160.6 cubic mm of volume.
Since the volume of associated cone is 1/3 we have cone volume be 51053.5 cubic mm.
But now, here in view we pour water into the cone and fill it up. We have our cylinder with a marker of 1/3 of the height. As I pour the water into the cylinder, it should match that marker.
16) What is an Axiom (some call it Postulate) and what is Theorem, Proof, and Corollary and Rule and Algorithm of Mathematics? What is theory and law in physics? A Glossary of Terms.
What is axiom (postulate), and terms like theorem, corollary and proof and algorithm in geometry?
If you study much math and science you will need to know some basic terms of math that are often used.
Some of these terms I have already discussed but never hurts to repeat important ideas.
(1) Equation:
(2) Formula:
(1) Axiom or some prefer the word Postulate: and both mean the same thing. These are ideas taken for granted and without further evidence. Ideas accepted as being true.
(2) Theorem: of mathematics is where you have idea written as a statement. This statement idea has to be proven true in step by step logic deductions, and thus deduce that idea using facts and axioms as justification for the steps. This deduction of step by step is called a mathematics proof.
(3) Proof: proof is the step by step deduction that shows the starting statement is supported by facts and axioms. In a later chapter, I outline a missing axiom of Old Math, where drawings and constructions are able to be used in making a proof, and thus speed up the process of a proof.
(4) Corollary: when a math proof is done it is called a theorem, but sometimes as the proof is done, there are side note consequences, sort of a extra fall-out of true ideas as a bonus. These secondary bonuses are called Corollaries to the main theorem. The Theorem is the big proof, while the corollary is a proof also, but is minor to the big theorem.
(5) Rule:
(6) Algorithm:
zzzzzzz
What is theory in physics and how does it compare with proof theorem of mathematics?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Theory
(2) Law
17) The Missing Axiom in Modern Geometry Discovered by AP in 2025.
The Missing Axiom that makes math proofs a million times easier.
Archimedes Plutonium May 11, 2025, 2:29:40 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
The Missing Axiom in Modern Geometry Discovered by AP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Eves & Newsom's book, 1958, "An Introduction to the Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics", the authors discuss on page 38 a breakdown in the Euclid axioms of missing postulates to be able to prove two circles intersect in point C to construct a equilateral triangle. The authors say no Euclid axiom allows for point C to be an intersection point. And the authors start to discuss that an axiom of continuity is needed to make that proof valid, for as it stands it is invalid.
I do not know if any mathematician has proposed a new Axiom that would cover this breach in a proof. Maybe Eves and Newsom themselves offered an axiom to cover the gap.
However, I do know for sure that AP can offer an axiom that would cover the breach and gap in a proof of equilateral triangle construction.
On the overhead projector, the teacher shows the class how a equilateral triangle is constructed by using only a Compass and Straightedge tools.
It is long noted in world history that someone said--- A picture speaks a thousand words. Is it not an awful shame that all Euclid definitions and postulates (axioms) are word written objects and none of them are pictures. So AP offers a new Postulate that will cover the gap of circles intersection.
The AP Axiom (Postulate)
-----------------------------
The AP Postulate: Whenever possible in a math problem or Proof, is to get Experimental hands on tools to ___Model the Problem____ and use the results of the Model in the proof itself. Use compass and ruler on paper with pencil. Use protractor, use plastic geometry figures, use wood blocks, use slinky toy rings for torus. Especially use graph paper when possible to Model.
That was the AP Axiom asking the mathematician to be a physicist or pragmatism or Scientific Method as an Axiom of math. Not all axioms of math need to be language prose statements, and an axiom that asks you to get out tools to come to a correct conclusion is very much needed and appropriate to mathematics. After-all, the highest form of knowledge is physics experiment and that is all hands on tools of modeling. Whereas mathematics is burdened with 100 assumptions as axioms and definitions for algebra and another 100 assumptions as axioms and definitions for geometry. While Physics goes into each experiment with 0 assumptions. Nothing to go wrong with assumptions in physics while algebra has 100 and geometry has another 100 assumptions that could be wrong.
So much of Ancient Greek mathematics was compass and ruler application. In modern times I use graph paper, pencil, protractor, compass, ruler, plastic toys, even slinky toys and thousands of tools to aid me in research.
So there is no need for Eves and Newsom to pen a new axiom--- a word by word new axiom to say that two equal circles can intersect in 2 points depending on the distance from centers. There is no need for a word salad axiom for continuity when geometry is all discrete.
The Ancient Greeks were so accustomed to using compass and ruler can--- obviously see the circles intersect.
So what the AP missing axiom of Using Tools to draw the problem, then that drawing can be used in making the proof.
AP Missing Axiom:: when using tools to make drawings of the problem, that drawing is justified in a proof of the problem.
Remember the Pythagorean theorem proved earlier with a proof that had no words at all, just several drawings. Well that is the crux of the AP Missing Axiom. We make drawings of the problem and those drawings are part of the proof of the statement.
Archimedes Plutonium May 11, 2025, 3:29:48 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
The Indispensable Tool of Graph Paper for Geometry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the AP Axiom asking mathematicians to use tools like a Physics Experiment; the tool that comes to mind most often for me with pencil is the graph paper. In graph paper, I prefer the graph paper where it has Ten small squares inside a larger square, the second green picture but instead of 5 in a row small squares inside a larger square I want 10 in a row. And the reason is obvious for Decimal 10 Grid of Numbers.
18) Equation of the Straightline in geometry Y = mX + b, alternatively written as mX + b = Y and b -mX = Y.
Archimedes Plutonium May 22, 2025, 3:28:58 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
Hard to tell which is the more basic and primal formula for Geometry, the equation for the Line as Y--> mX + b or is it the Pythagorean Theorem A^2 + B^2 = H^2 ????
It is the Pythagorean Theorem that connects numbers with geometry, and you really only need one connection for the connection to be solid connection.
But, it is the Line function Y--> mX + b that does mostly all the work in geometry and calculus.
So, today, I was looking to see how to best--- logically --- introduce the great working function of Y--> mX + b. By the way I write functions with an arrow, for we should not mistake function values as equal equality. We should keep in mind that functions are different than equations of algebra for functions are assignments of x values producing a unique y value in a Graph of 1st Quadrant Only.
I am a highly logical person and well equipped to write the definitive textbooks for High School Geometry and for College Calculus.
So I am trying to think back at this moment to when in my schooling I learned that Y --> mX + b. It was at Anderson High School near Cincinnati Ohio and there I learned, thankfully, many problem exercises in the linear function. I learned "m" was the slope and "b" was called the "y-axis intercept".
Start with the Straightline formula of Y --> mX + b
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here we have on the overhead projector our 10 Grid graph and we have 0 here and the x-axis. Going upward we have the y-axis.
Now I draw a straightline that is flat across starting here at where x= 0 and where y = 1. This coordinate point is (0,1) where we list the x number first then the y number.
And as you can see this line goes straight across as flat. This line intercepts the y-axis at 1. This y-intercept is the "b" in Y--> mX + b. So let us write that in the formula Y--> mX + 1, for the flat straightline intercepted the y axis at 1. Now we look for the meaning of "m" which you will find means the slope of the line.
The slope of a line is the change in y value divided by the change in x value over an interval. The y-value is called either the rise if the line is "rising" as we go from left to right, or "falling" if the line falls as going from left to right. The x-value is called the "run".
Our line has no change in y value for it is always a value of 1. So we have 1-1 = 0. Does our x value change?? Yes of course as we move across the graph from left to right we have a change at 0.1 from 0, then a change of value as we reach x= 0.2, then a change as x reaches 0.3. But the y value stays the same. So the slope of our flat line running from 0 to 10 in the 10 Grid is that of 0 divided by numbers which is equal to 0. Our slope of this line is 0, and we can write it into our formula as Y--> 0(X) + 1. Since 0 multiply any number is again 0, we can just lop off the mX and have Y--> 1 as our flat line with 0 slope and intercepting the y-axis at coordinate point (0,1).
So the slope of all flat lines is a 0 slope for "m".
Notice that in our formula we move across the graph from left to right starting at (0,0). This is important because this is a function. Notice that we use arrows rather than equal signs, because functions are about movement. While equations are equal signs for they are about a balancing beam of leftside equal and identical to rightside of balancing beam.
Let us try another Flat Line graphing of Y--> 2. Here on overhead projector I start with x= 0 and the y value when x= 0 is that of 2. So I go up the y-axis to 2, and now, since the mX in Y--> mX +b, since the m is 0, means that it does not matter as we move across the x-axis because the x value is multiplied by 0 giving us 0 for mX.
Now notice our two flat lines so far of Y--> 2 and Y--> 1 are parallel. And remember how we define parallel?? Two line segments or lines which span the entire grid in 10 grid goes from 0 to 10, that given a point on one line and forming a perpendicular at that point when it intersects the second line, it is also a perpendicular 90 degree angle. In Old Math, they defined parallel as meaning the lines never intersect at infinity, but they failed to well-define infinity with a border between finite and infinite. So instead of being hypocrite of infinity, we define parallel as that of perpendicular on one line is perpendicular on second line.
zzzzz
Y --> X, the identity straightline when x= 0, then y=0. When x= 1, y= 1; when x= 2, y= 2, and so on.
19) Summary of all the Algebra that you need to know for High School.
A far better name for Algebra would have been Number-Mechanics, for really that is what Algebra is mostly about, the manipulation of numbers.
Mathematics can be split-up into two branches--- numbers and geometry. Numbers for quantity and geometry for shape. But these two branches are not separate and isolated from one another, as the Pythagorean Theorem teaches us that a right triangle must obey A^2 + B^2 = C^2. Physics has a concept of that interconnection and calls it "duality". For in physics position is the dual of momentum, and electricity is the dual of magnetism. Where ever you have one such as magnetism, you have to have electricity. Energy and time are two more duals, and wherever you have time, you have energy and vice versa. Wherever you have Numbers you have Geometry and vice versa.
We started with an equation and the equal sign. We said an equation is a Balancing Beam, and that on one side of the two trays of the balancing beam we have a object and on the other side we have weights so that the beam will rest in the middle and one side equal the other side in weight. We said we cannot have 0 all alone on one side of an equation, because 0 is nothing and the other side is something.
So that was an early axiom of Algebra talking about Equality and Equations.
Axiom: A equation of math is such that the rightside must have a nonzero positive Decimal Grid Number all alone at all times.
We talked about how many terms are in a equation. Such as the equation 4x^3 -3x^2 + 5x = 2 has 1 term on rightside for that is the definition of a Equation while we count three terms of add and subtract on leftside of Equation.
We talked about what happens if we add a term to the leftside or subtract a term from the leftside that we must do the same to the rightside to keep the balance beam balanced.
We talked about what happens to a equation if we multiply the leftside, means you have to multiply each term by whatever you are multiplying, and in our equation above of 4x^3 -3x^2 + 5x = 2 if we multiply by 2, then we multiply 4x^3 by 2 and we multiply -3x^2 by 2 and we multiply 5x by 2. But we also have to multiply every term on the rightside by 2 to keep the balance balanced. When we have done all of that we have 8x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 4. If we were to divide the Equation 4x^3 -3x^2 + 5x = 2 by say 3, we have to do that to every term and we end up with (4/3)x^3 -x^2 + (5/3)x = (2/3) to keep the balance balanced.
Some of the axioms of algebra that are represented by Number Mechanics have the names Commutative, Associative and Distributive.
Axiom of Commutative: A + B = B + A, so that addition has no order. However A - B is not equal to B - A. And so subtraction is not commutative. Multiplication is commutative in that A*B = B*A. Division is not commutative in that A/B is not equal to B/A universally, although it is true that 1/1 = 1/1.
Examples: 4 + 6 = 6 + 4 and 4*6 = 6*4.
Axiom of Associative: Is that of (A+B)+C = A +(B+C) and (A*B)C = A(B*C) which means that if you have three numbers (or more) that it does not matter on what order you add them or multiply them, for the end result is equal.
Examples: (3+5) +7 = 3 +(5+7) and that (3*5)7 = 3(5*7).
Axiom of Distributive: This property combines addition with multiplication, and simply says that if you multiply terms of addition, you must multiply each term so that A*(B+C) = AB + AC.
Examples: 2*(4+6) = 2*4 + 2*6.
Now we are going to take an aside and teach you the Scientific Notation that abounds in science like physics or chemistry. Scientific Notation is just a easy way of stating a number with a-lot of digits. So if I have a number, a large number like the mass of the Sun is 2 followed by 30 zero digits is too large to write out, so we use this convenient notation of Scientific Notation and write the mass of the Sun as 2*10^30 kilograms. Likewise, for extremely small numbers such as the mass of the muon we have 2*10^-28 kilograms. And written out long hand is decimal point with 27 zeroes then the 2 digit. Now the -28 in 10^-28 is not a negative number -28 but only a number telling you where the decimal point lies.
Be sure to include 1.1*10^-19 u = 1.6*10^-19 solve for u, unknown and we have 1.6/1.1 = 1.45
Solve for Unknown in equation the "u". Subtraction from both sides of equation to solve for perimeter. Division on both sides of equation to solve for length or width of rectangle area.
Include Scientific Notation.
Stress again that equations are Weighing Balances and in weighing we cannot have 0 all alone on right side of equation for 0 represents "nothing" no reality and we cannot add on the left side of Balance that of reality to equal no reality on right side. This seems like philosophy, but it is just that mathematics had too many kooks that went astray and filled math with kook menagerie such as negative numbers.
If negative numbers existed then there would exist such folly as negative-right-triangles, or negative-cubes.
Often in Old Math, kooks appeared who wanted to become famous and so they would invent fiction things like negative numbers to become rich and famous, but leaving mathematics in a mess.
20) Introduction to the Function in mathematics, and polynomials the only valid functions.
What is the function such as Y --> mX + b the straightline function formula??
So in the plane with x-axis and y-axis, where coordinate point (0,0) is in the lower left corner of the graph paper. We have just this one quadrant, not the Old Math silly 4 quadrants.
The Function of mathematics is a movement from (0,0) along the x-axis, so that each number on the x-axis is graphed into a number on the y-axis. But it must be a unique, a one and only one number on y-axis.
Polynomial
---------------
First the polynomial equation then the polynomial function is discussed. You need functions for calculus and the only valid functions in all of mathematics are polynomial functions.
We already did the formula for the straightline, as that of Y--> mX + b.
Remember the formula Y --> X, the identity straightline for its y intercept is 0 and splits the 1st quadrant of 10 Grid down the middle in a diagonal of 45 degrees.
Here I draw Y--> X on the overhead projector once again.
The definition of a Polynomial is this.
Starting with the most simple of polynomial equation. Remember on the rightside of an equation has to be a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number.
So the most simple polynomial is this.
Ax = B where A and B are decimal grid numbers and this is called a 1st order polynomial because the exponent on x is that of 1, for x^1 is equal to x.
Now the next most simple polynomial is going to have an x^2 as a 2nd order polynomial, as its largest x value, and that equation in general looks like this.
Ax^2 + Bx = C where A, B, C are decimal grid numbers, and there are no negative decimal grid numbers to worry about.
Now the next higher polynomial is going to have an x^3 as a 3rd order polynomial, as its largest x value, and that that equation in general looks like this.
Ax^3 + Bx^2 + Cx = D where A, B,C,D are decimal grid numbers and called coefficients to the variable x.
Now although I show these polynomial equations with a add sign, many have a mix of add or subtract.
Here are some polynomials of various sorts.
1.1x = 4.4
2.5x^2 + 3x = 20
2.5x^2 - 3x = 20
x^3 + 2x^2 + 3x = 5
x^3 -2x^2 + 3x = 5
Now for High School we stop there for physics rarely uses polynomials beyond 3
Now a polynomial has two variables, for the x varies and the y varies and as we plug in the x, the y value shows itself. And polynomials have an "order of polynomial" based on the x with the highest exponent number. In the formula of Y= mX + b, that is a first order polynomial because the exponent of the largest x is that of 1. If we look at Y = x^2 + 3x + 2 that would be a second order polynomial since the highest exponent of x is 2 in x^2. If we look at Y = x^3 + 2x^2 + 5x + 1 that is a polynomial equation of third order because the largest exponent of x is 3 and remember what exponent means??? For x^2 means x times x and x^3 means x times x times x.
21) Postscript about this book continued "under construction".
Sorry, I really wanted to finish this book in Spring of 2025, but when I got into the work, found out it is one of the hardest books to write-- a textbook that is sound in logic and was just absorbing too much of my time. And this being summer where outdoor work beckons me, I simply have to put it off until this winter when I can focus and concentrate more.
I would say 75% is done.
This is an apology chapter because for some reason the writing of this book has zapped much energy out of me and feel that it is still not in perfect condition as of yet. Rather than hold up all my other books, I decided to publish this book "as is", for the moment.
And slowly month by month, add material to where this is an exceptional book.
Once I achieve that goal, I will erase this apology chapter.
AP
zzzzzzzzzz
plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or University press to hardcover publish all 350+ AP books of science, likely to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who thwart access to true science.
| /
| /
|/______ hardcover or paperback
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
12) Introduction to the fictions of circle, ellipse and oval in geometry, for no curves exist in geometry.
Why Gilbert Strang of MIT & Davide Cavion Trinity College Dublin, Jan Burse, ETH Zurich, Dan Christensen Western Ontario, Kibo Parry from Rensselaer, John Baez UC Riverside, Tim Sweeney from Univ Maryland, Toby Howard Manchester Univ, Joseph Scott of Dartmouth, Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton, Steve Huffman of Univ Virginia all losers and failures of math geometry?? Because they are too dumb to see that slant cut of Cone is not an ellipse but an oval??? Or that they are too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen in water electrolysis--- no like Jan Burse, skip hop and jump to the lounge for coffee and cake once they look at volume.Cannot understand slant cut of cylinder is truly ellipse but in cone it is oval? Do they have cataracts in their eyes or are they simpleton fools failures of math like you, John Baez a sci.math math failure???--- quoting Wikipedia------ end quoting Wikipedia---Huffman's broadcast on math lunatics starting with Terry Tao UCLA, unable to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse for it appears everything Terry does in math is a memorization of a Wikipedia page.
--- quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section, for Jimmy Wales with his fascist editors never allow the truth of science into any of their entries of science in Wikipedia, not even a simple geometry of slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse------ end quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section---
UC Riverside Jim Kelliher meet Sara Lapan; Michel Lapidus meet Carl Mautner, John Baez meet Terence Tao; Reddit's Steve Huffman lunatics meet the slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.John C. BaezBaez in August 2009
BornJohn Carlos Baez
June 12, 1961 (age 63)San Francisco, California, U.S.
Education
Princeton University (AB)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (PhD)
Spouse
Lisa Raphals
Awards
Levi L. Conant Prize (2013)[1]
Scientific career
Fields
Mathematics, mathematical physics
Institutions
University of California, Riverside
Thesis
Conformally Invariant Quantum Fields (1986)
Doctoral advisor
Irving Segal
Doctoral students
Alissa CransSteve Huffman (Reddit) on math lunatics. Steve is John Baez a math lunatic for he refuses to admit the truth about slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse. And of course revealing how much a math failure John is, unable to recognize that if the polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, makes calculus super easy. But no-one can penetrate the dense shell of a math lunatic, not Baez, not Wiles not Tao.
Steve Huffman on math lunatics Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao,
Steve Huffman University of Virginia, Alexis Ohanian
Reddit (symbol) An other Archimedes Plutonium rant about irrational numbers Reddit · r/badmathematics 10+ comments · 6 years ago An
.jpg)
Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything
-John Baez UC Riverside:
-On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:28:35 AM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
-> ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
-> just grab a dictionary, asshole
->
UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang
-Mathstodon (Mathstodon logo)
-John Carlos Baez: "My paper has finally appeared..."
-Jul 2, 2024---... Plutonium's "the universe is a plutonium atom... -Archimedes was better than the Beethoven and changed his name to -Archimedes Plutonium.
In AP's 68th book of science
EXPERIMENT
Through the years since 2016, one experiment stood out and I often used it in explanations of the thousands of posts on the Internet news groups of sci.math and sci.physics. Easy simple experiment involving a paper cone you can fold yourself, such as the cover of a magazine rolled up makes a cone and a Kerr or Mason lid. As you rest the lid in the cone, you see the circle when parallel to base, but tilt that Kerr lid just at a slant angle and what you see forming is not an ellipse for the upper part is not-symmetrical with the lower parts. This figure that is formed from the slant cut is a oval. To achieve a ellipse, the walls have to be symmetrical such as a cylinder. The slant cut of a cylinder is indeed a ellipse.
In November 2019, I often posted this sketch diagram so that High School students can see how easy it is to "see in the mind's eye, that the ellipse is a cylinder cut, never a cone cut".
But then the foolish math professors at CalTech and Stanford, of Harvard and Princeton, at the AMS, American Mathematical Society, are so stupid on these topics that they cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.
1. looking down from cone apex
bottom
______
,'"^ "`.
/ \
| | slant cut into cone is oval, never ellipse
\ /
'. .'
" '
top
2.
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
3.
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ; B
| |
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-._____.-'
4.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | slant cut of cylinder is always a ellipse, never a oval due to the fact
| | a cylinder has two axes of symmetry, while a cone has just 1 axis
| | of symmetry
| |
| |
| |
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2) Ad Hominem
3) Ambiguity
4) Mis-identification
5) Mistakes in Existence-Nonexistence for the derivative is the existential quantifier
6) Mistakes in Universal for the integral is the universal quantifier-- the giver of consistency
Univ Houston Matt Mullenweg & U.Minnesota PZ Myers Universal TEST of science and math teachers in High School and colleges
----------------------------------------------------
Where teachers are not allowed if they fail.
And where PhD's are made null and void.
-----------------------------------------------------
And Matt Mullenweg, PZ Myers with their Wordpress platform conducts the TEST and highlights the fact that Matt and PZ Myers are science failures of Math, Physics, Logic and how to put together a idea of science. And that Mullenweg Wordpress & Myers pharyngula blog present a --- universal methodology of null and voiding all scientists of their degree in science on a TEST.
WordPress.com Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit - Word Press dot com Feb 6, 2013-- Plutonium simply thinks superdeterminism is the only way quantum theory can make sense. And given his horrific understanding of the spherical harmonics of an.... via PsyGremlin via PZ Myers
Pseudoscientists PZ Myers and Matt Mullenweg failed math and logic for their small minds cannot even see that a slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse for you need the symmetry of a cylinder to obtain a ellipse slant cut which points out the fact that Myers and Mullenweg have no native science intelligence but all of which is memorized from book reading for they have no logical marbles in their brain cap to reason the truth of anything in the world. And it is a shame that kooks of science like Myers and Mullenweg have teaching roles when they fail science outright.
1-Cannot understand slant cut of cylinder is truly ellipse but in cone it is oval? Do they have cataracts in their eyes or are they simpleton fools failures of math like you, PZ Myers and Matt Mullenweg a sci.math math failure???1--- quoting Wikipedia---1--- end quoting Wikipedia---1-Matt Mullenweg & PZ Myers
broadcast on math raving nutters starting with Terry Tao UCLA, unable to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse for it appears everything Terry does in math is a memorization of a Wikipedia page.
Steve Huffman lists science lunatics:
Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything
Univ Virginia math dept: Peter Abramenko, Julie Bergner, Mikhail Ershov, Jeffrey Holt, John Imbrie, Thomas Koberda, Slava Krushkal, Thomas Mark, Jennifer Morse, Ken Ono, Andrei Rapinchuk, Christian Reidys, Jim Rolf, Charles Dunki, Ira Herbst, James Howland, Craig Huneke, Thomas Kriete, Nicholas Kuhn, Irena Lasiecka, Barbara MacCluer, Kevin McCrimmon, Karen Parshall, Loren Pitt, Donald Ramirez, James Rovnyak, Leonard Scott, Lawrence Thomas, Roberto Triggiani, Harold Ward
1--- quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section, for Jimmy Wales with his fascist editors never allow the truth of science into any of their entries of science in Wikipedia, not even a simple geometry of slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse---
1--- end quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section---
No wonder no-one at University Minnesota Morris UMM could ever do a proper logical Water Electrolysis by not stopping at looking at volume of hydrogen and compare to oxygen but actually getting out the weighing scale. No, when you have kook science brains like Myers and Mullenweg, you hop skip and jump to the coffee lounge once you look at volume, too stupid to weigh.
I do not know, does University Minnesota Morris UMM, even have a quartz microbalance scale, and would PZ Myers ever know how to do Water Electrolysis, for it appears to me all that PZ Myers can do is --- if you place a lens in each of his ears-- makes a fine telescope.
Matt Mullenweg's Univ.Houston science and math-- says nothing but spherical bullshit-- Ed Hungerford, Alex Ignatiev, Joseph McCauley, Mark A Meier, Shuheng Pan, Lawrence Pinsky, Audrius Brazdeikis, Rabi Ebrahim, Rebecca Forrest, Sladjana Maric,
Why Matt?? Is it because no-one at UH can admit slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse. And none can admit polynomial is the only valid function reducing calculus to add or subtract 1 from exponent and thus calculus supereasy. But worst of all, none can admit 9 x muon rest mass equals neutron rest mass within sigma error raising the question that the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the Dirac magnetic monopole = 0.5MeV.
Matt Mullenweg
Spherical Bullshit Wordpress.com (symbol) Spherical Bullshit Feb 6, 2013 -- The central thesis... is the "atom totality" theory. This states that the structure of... via PZ Myers....
Univ Houston physics dept Ed Hungerford, Alex Ignatiev, Joseph McCauley, Mark A Meier, Shuheng Pan, Lawrence Pinsky, Audrius Brazdeikis, Rabi Ebrahim, Rebecca Forrest, Sladjana Maric, Israel Portillo
math dept Giles Auchmuty, John Hardy, Gordon Johnson, Johnny Johnson, Klaus Kaiser, Christopher Murray, Vern Paulsen, Charles Peters, David Wagner, Clifton Whyburn, Jennifer May, Nicholas Leger
Mullenweg & Myers on Spherical Bullshit that is Univ Houston, Klaus Kaiser, Christopher Murray, Vern Paulsen, Charles Peters, David Wagner, Clifton Whyburn, Jennifer May, Nicholas Leger.No one there passes Mullenweg & Myers TEST, slant cut of cone is not ellipse but oval, and so Univ Houston is nothing but Spherical Bullshit.PZ Myers wearing the shithead+cap of Matt Mullenweg at the Spherical Bullshit Univ Minnesota +Univ Houston, Rebecca Cunningham, Paul Crowell, Kevin Bassler, Maurice Brookhart, Chu Ching-wuMullenweg & Myers TEST that makes all science degrees Null & Void if you fail.AP writes:: funny, how Mullenweg & Myers both failed the test, and their degrees in science null and void.Univ Houston Matt Mullenweg & U.Minnesota PZ Myers Universal TEST of PhD's being null and void.----------------------------------------------------------------------------And Matt Mullenweg, PZ Myers with their cheap low class Wordpress smear platform highlights the fact that Matt and PZ Myers are totally ignorant of Physics, Logic and how to put together a idea of science. And that Mullenweg Wordpress & Myers pharyngula blog present a --- universal methodology of null and voiding all scientists of their degree in science on a TEST.
Matt Wallenweg & PZ Myers Spherical Bullshit with their Test of PhD science professors
Univ Houston physics dept Ed Hungerford, Alex Ignatiev, Joseph McCauley, Mark A Meier, Shuheng Pan, Lawrence Pinsky, Audrius Brazdeikis, Rabi Ebrahim, Rebecca Forrest, Sladjana Maric, Israel Portillo
math dept Giles Auchmuty, John Hardy, Gordon Johnson, Johnny Johnson, Klaus Kaiser, Christopher Murray, Vern Paulsen, Charles Peters, David Wagner, Clifton Whyburn, Jennifer May, Nicholas Leger
WordPress.com Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit - Word Press dot com Feb 6, 2013-- Plutonium simply thinks superdeterminism is the only way quantum theory can make sense. And given his horrific understanding of the spherical harmonics of an....Pseudoscientists PZ Myers and Matt Mullenweg failed math and logic for their small minds cannot even see that a slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse for you need the symmetry of a cylinder to obtain a ellipse slant cut which points out the fact that Myers and Mullenweg have no native science intelligence but all of which is memorized from book reading for they have no logical marbles in their brain cap to reason the truth of anything in the world. And it is a shame that kooks of science like Myers and Mullenweg have teaching roles when they fail science outright.No wonder no-one at University Minnesota could ever do a proper logical Water Electrolysis by not stopping at looking at volume of hydrogen and compare to oxygen but actually getting out the weighing scale. No, when you have kook science brains like Myers and Mullenweg, you hop skip and jump to the coffee lounge once you look at volume, too stupid to weigh.I do not know, does University Minnesota, even have a quartz microbalance scale, and would PZ Myers ever know how to do Water Electrolysis, for it appears to me all that PZ Myers can do is --- if you place a lens in each of his ears-- makes a fine telescope.Matt Mullenweg's Univ.Houston science and math-- says nothing but spherical bullshit-- Ed Hungerford, Alex Ignatiev, Joseph McCauley, Mark A Meier, Shuheng Pan, Lawrence Pinsky, Audrius Brazdeikis, Rabi Ebrahim, Rebecca Forrest, Sladjana Maric,Why Matt?? Is it because no-one at UH can admit slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse. And none can admit polynomial is the only valid function reducing calculus to add or subtract 1 from exponent and thus calculus supereasy. But worst of all, none can admit 9 x muon rest mass equals neutron rest mass within sigma error raising the question that the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the Dirac magnetic monopole = 0.5MeV.
Matt Mullenweg
Spherical Bullshit Wordpress.com (symbol) Spherical Bullshit Feb 6, 2013 -- The central thesis... is the "atom totality" theory. This states that the structure of... via PZ Myers....
Univ Houston physics dept Ed Hungerford, Alex Ignatiev, Joseph McCauley, Mark A Meier, Shuheng Pan, Lawrence Pinsky, Audrius Brazdeikis, Rabi Ebrahim, Rebecca Forrest, Sladjana Maric, Israel Portillo
math dept Giles Auchmuty, John Hardy, Gordon Johnson, Johnny Johnson, Klaus Kaiser, Christopher Murray, Vern Paulsen, Charles Peters, David Wagner, Clifton Whyburn, Jennifer May, Nicholas Leger
--- quoting Wikipedia ---Matt Mullenweg asks Caltech why they are so dumb in physics as to bypass the question of which is the atom's true electron??? That 0.5MeV particle or the muon which makes a lot more sense that the muon is the Atom's true electron!!!!Matt MullenwegMullenweg in 2019
BornMatthew Charles Mullenweg
January 11, 1984 (age 40)Houston, Texas, U.S.
Education
University of Houston
Occupation(s)
Entrepreneur, Founder & CEO,[1] Automattic
Principal, Audrey Capital[2]
Lead Developer, WordPress Foundation
Organization
Automattic
Known for
Developing WordPress.com---end quoting Wikipedia ---Matt Mullenweg on bullshit physics of University of Houston David Wagner, Clifton Whyburn, Jennifer Maywith their inability to understand any of these modern day issues::::Matt Mullenweg
Spherical Bullshit Wordpress.com (symbol) Spherical Bullshit Feb 6, 2013 -- The central thesis... is the "atom totality" theory. This states that the structure of...
Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit - WordPress.com Spherical Bullshit https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com › 2013/02/06 Feb 6, 2013 — Plutonium simply thinks superdeterminism is the only way quantum theory can make sense. And given his horrific understanding of the spherical harmonics of an ... via PZ Myers....AP writes: It was great that the Internet opened up Science to the entire world. Only trouble is, most people who think they know science will come to find out, all they know is their childish memorizations and their empty head of logical marbles.Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit - WordPress.com Spherical Bullshit https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com › 2013/02/06 Feb 6, 2013 — Plutonium simply thinks superdeterminism is the only way quantum theory can make sense. And given his horrific understanding of the spherical harmonics of an ... via PZ MyersAP writes: It was great that the Internet opened up Science to the entire world. Only trouble is, most people who think they know science will come to find out, all they know is their childish memorizations and their empty head of logical marbles.PZ Myers, is it not super stupid to talk about physics when you are only a biologist, or even get involved with a physics conversation?????????? Super stupidPZ MyersPZ Myers in London in 2006
BornPaul Zachary Myers
March 9, 1957 (age 68)Kent, Washington, U.S.
Education
University of Washington (BS)
University of Oregon (PhD)
Known for
Pharyngula blog
Scientific career
Fields
Evolutionary developmental biology
Institutions
University of Minnesota Morris--- end quoting Wikipedia on PZ MyersAP: Why is not Adam wearing his glued on walrus tusks for his picture taking?Just like David Attenborough saber toothed tiger Smilodon??
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton
Quora (symbol logo) Quora Quora https://www.quora.com › What-effect-did-Archimedes-... Aug 26, 2013 — Plutonium is significant because its isotope, plutonium-239, is a slow nuclear fuel. A slow nuclear fuel will likely undergo nuclear fission if ... 4 answers · Top answer: Everyone was trying to figure out this new medium, the internet, what it was for.
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan ; University of Glasgow
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Mark Barton University Glasgow and Univ. Queensland: Not at all, he was a raving nutter.
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton
Quora (symbol logo) Quora Quora https://www.quora.com› What-effect-did-Archimedes-... Aug 26, 2013 — Plutonium is significant because its isotope, plutonium-239, is a slow nuclear fuel. A slow nuclear fuel will likely undergo nuclear fission if ... 4 answers · Top answer: Everyone was trying to figure out this new medium, the internet, what it was for.
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton. Quora (symbol logo) Mark Barton PhD physicist with University of Glasgow Author has 16.9K answers and 21.5M answer views10y None at all - he was a raving nutter. 1.9K viewsView upvotes... Robert J. Kolker "The man spouts total nonsense and balderdash..."
Mark Barton on Katherine Grainger, Paul Soler, Andy Blue, Sheila Rowan, James Hough, Graham Woan, Martin Hendry, Giles Hammond, Ik Siong Heng, Harry Ward, Iain Martin, Sonja Franke-Arnold, Miles Padgett, Richard Bowman, Graham Gibson, Sara Restuccia, Simon Peter Mekhail, Chris Bouchard, Christoph Englert, Judd Harrison, David Miller, Sophie Renner, Declan Diver, Lyndsay Fletcher, Norman Gray, Iain Hannah...Peter Bussey, Michael Campbell, David Crooks, who cannot tell apart a oval from a ellipse, with their slant cut of Cone as ellipse which is impossible for the cone has but one axis of symmetry.
Mark Barton, Univ.Glasgow on Raving Nutters + Robert J. Kolker's Berkeley balderdash science Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita, Sheldon Glashow
Volney failures..Berkeley,Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin
Kibo Parry (Moroney-Volney 30 year nonstop stalker in sci.math, sci.physics-- kibo was the first crackpot we met in sci.math especially with his 938 is 12% short of 945, yet Rensselaer Polytechnic graduates him as a engineer).On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 5:37:32 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"goonclod failure of logic"
Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.
Surely they knew the Quartz Crystal Microbalance had been around since 1960s to weigh hydrogen versus oxygen in water electrolysis. Or is that tougher of a science for Berkeley than nucleosynthesis of plutonium and curium???
Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.UC Berkeley, the place where plutonium was discovered by Seaborg et al, deserves a separate listing, as a top of tops school in science.
Berkeley physics & chemistryUC Berkeley,Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,
Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin, Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Dr.John Clarke, Dr.Marvin Cohen, Dr.Michael Crommie, Dr.Joel Fajans, Dr. Roger Falcone, Dr.Mary Gaillard, Dr.Gabriel Gann, Dr.Naomi Ginsberg, Dr.Heather Gray, Dr.Hartmut Haeffner, Dr.Lawrence Hall, Dr.Oskar Hallatschek, Dr.Wick Haxton, Dr.Frances Hellman, Dr.Petr Horava, Dr.Barbara Jacak, Dr.Bob Jacobsen, Dr.Steven Kahn, Dr.Dan Kasen, Dr.Edgar Knobloch, Dr.Shimon Kolkowitz, Dr.Yury Kolomensky, Dr.Alessandra Lanzara, Dr.Stephen Leone, Dr.Eric Ma,... the physics faculty reads almost as long as a army of soldiers, please forgive any names that AP left out, please forgive...
Mark Barton is everyone at UC Berkeley raving nutters for they still preach slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. No wonder no-one at Berkeley, least of all Kolker or Muller have the logical marbles to weigh the mass of oxygen versus hydrogen in water electrolysis, no, they skip and hop back to the lounge for coffee and donuts after looking at volume, never able to weigh the mass, like a complete-scientist.
Robert J. Kolker and Richard A. Muller Berkeley failing in all facets of science--- failures in science-- so stupid they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction. Read AP's textbook--
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors// Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 5th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
9) Never took logic, or not enough, to understand Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids black holes.
10) Too stupid in mind to understand for the Atomic Theory to be a law of science requires the Universe itself be a Atom.
11) Far far too stupid to insist the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, thus reducing Calculus to a mere add or subtract 1 from exponent and making Calculus ----Super super easy
12) So stupid in physics that they never took a course in Logic in College to be able to think straight and clear and thus able to understand that physics has no Black Holes nor does it have a Big Bang for both violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. duh duh duh
13) Hopelessly stupid in science when they see Accelerated Polar Ice Cap melt and run to their dumbarse computer modeling with CO2 greenhouse gas, when it is the Sun gone Red Giant because Sun and stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion. As every proton in the Sun is having muons thrust through the proton torus producing electrical energy.
14) So stupid in science and logic, that they will not even do Water Electrolysis and actually weigh the mass of oxygen compare to hydrogen. No, these logically impaired so-called scientists stop the experiment by eyeballing the volume, and then run to the lounge for cake coffee and donuts. Please be sure-- dan christensen, kibo parry and jan burse to concoct a hate sheet that appears 2nd or 3rd in a Google search of AP.
15) Is there any university in the entire world that requires its scientists to have 2 years of Logic study-- the AP corrected Logic not the crazy error filled Boole logic, so they can at least try to think straight, think clearly--- Answer is--- no.
Mark Barton, does Andrew Wiles have cataracts in his eyes that he cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, for the cone is a different figure altogether from a cylinder. No wonder Dr. Wiles failed math and failed proving Fermat's Last Theorem, for bozo Wiles never understood that Euler did not have a proof of FLT in exponent 3. If one cannot see slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, well, they are like you say Mark Barton--- a Raving Nutter.Univ Glasgow, Mark Barton raving nutter list (Quora) on Katherine Grainger, Paul Soler, Andy Blue, Sheila Rowan, James Hough, Graham Woan
John Baez UC Riverside:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:28:35 AM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
> ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
> just grab a dictionary, asshole
>
AP writes: Apparently John Baez never understood Logic, for oval and ellipse are not subsets of each other, they have nothing in common. I bet Berkeley math and physics would not make that stupid mistake but UC Riverside that is common daily mistakes there.Robert Kolker, did not Andrew Wiles see AP's true proof of Fermat's Last Theorem where Andrew is so stupid in math that he could not even spot that Euler had a fake proof of FLT in exponent 3, forgetting to prove in the case where all three variables are even. And of course, Andrew is so dumb in math he never spotted that slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Maybe Kolker says balderdash and nonsense for what can one expect from a person to not see and admit slant cut of cone is oval not ellipse.
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton
Quora (symbol logo) Quora Quora https://www.quora.com › What-effect-did-Archimedes-... Aug 26, 2013 — Plutonium is significant because its isotope, plutonium-239, is a slow nuclear fuel. A slow nuclear fuel will likely undergo nuclear fission if ... 4 answers · Top answer: Everyone was trying to figure out this new medium, the internet, what it was for.
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton. Quora (symbol logo) Mark Barton PhD physicist with University of Glasgow Author has 16.9K answers and 21.5M answer views10y None at all - he was a raving nutter. 1.9K viewsView upvotes... Robert J. Kolker "The man spouts total nonsense and balderdash. The only effect he has on me is to cause me to wonder why anyone pays attention to him."
Mark Barton on Katherine Grainger, Paul Soler, Andy Blue, Sheila Rowan, James Hough, Graham Woan, Martin Hendry, Giles Hammond, Ik Siong Heng, Harry Ward, Iain Martin, Sonja Franke-Arnold, Miles Padgett, Richard Bowman, Graham Gibson, Sara Restuccia, Simon Peter Mekhail, Chris Bouchard, Christoph Englert, Judd Harrison, David Miller, Sophie Renner, Declan Diver, Lyndsay Fletcher, Norman Gray, Iain Hannah...Peter Bussey, Michael Campbell, David Crooks, who cannot tell apart a oval from a ellipse, with their slant cut of Cone as ellipse which is impossible for the cone has but one axis of symmetry.
1-Cannot understand slant cut of cylinder is truly ellipse but in cone it is oval? Do they have cataracts in their eyes or are they simpleton fools failures of math like you, Mark Barton a sci.math math failure???1--- quoting Wikipedia---1--- end quoting Wikipedia---1-Mark Barton broadcast on math raving nutters starting with Terry Tao UCLA, unable to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse for it appears everything Terry does in math is a memorization of a Wikipedia page.
1--- quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section, for Jimmy Wales with his fascist editors never allow the truth of science into any of their entries of science in Wikipedia, not even a simple geometry of slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse---1--- end quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section---1-Mark Barton, can even one math professor or physics professor at Univ Glasgow be honest and admit, slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse? Apparently no-one at Oxford Univ is honest enough to admit the truth on conics, and to think they want to name a building after Wiles--- perhaps they can engrave this along with it--- He that knoweth not what is slant cut of cone and thinks he proved FLT, when he was blind to even Euler's mistake in exp 3 for Euler forget to prove when A, B, C are even in A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Build a monument to Andrew Wiles--- the grievious failure of math.
--- quoting Wikipedia------ end quoting Wikipedia---
Every scientist at these Universities fail the Mullenweg-Myers TEST for none of their science professors have ever admitted the truth on slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse for the cylinder slant cut is required. Thus, by universal law-- their PhD in science is null and void.Mullenweg-Myers TEST to see if your science degree is null and void-------------------------------------------------------------------TEST:: look at the Wikipedia cylinder and cone above and answer the question:: Is slant cut of cone a Oval or a Ellipse?????
John Baez UC Riverside:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:28:35 AM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
> ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
> just grab a dictionary, asshole
>
AP writes: And this is the dept head of UC Riverside???
UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang
Mathstodon (Mathstodon logo)
John Carlos Baez: "My paper has finally appeared..."
Jul 2, 2024---... Plutonium's "the universe is a plutonium atom... Archimedes was better than the Beethoven and changed his name to Archimedes Plutonium.
Indiana Univ. James Watson, David Baxter, John M. Beggs, Raymond Co, Ceren Dag, Radovan Demisek, Rob de Ruyter, Nelson Batalon Jr. Curtis Bitner, Susan J. Brown, Regan Campbell, Danny Clark, Brenda Borntrager, Brian Davis,
Univ Colorado,Boulder Physics department: Dr.Dana Z.Anderson,Dr.Paul Beale,Dr.Andreas Becker,Dr.Joseph Berry, Dr.Meredith Betterton, Dr.John Bohn, Dr.John Cary, Dr.Noel Clark, Dr. Eric Cornell, Dr.John Cumalat, Dr.Thomas DeGrand, Dr.Oliver DeWolfe, Dr.Matthew Glaser, Dr.Victor Gurarie, Dr.Anna Hasenfratz, Dr.Michael Hermele, Dr.Murray Holland, Dr.Ed Kinney, Dr.Minhyea Lee, Dr.Heather Lewandowski, Dr.Andrew Lucas, Dr.Alysia Marino, Dr.Angelo Mascarenhas, Dr.Tobin Munsat, Dr.Margaret Murnane, Dr.Carl Wieman, Dr.Herbert Kroemer, Dr. Eric Cornell, Dr.Stanley Cohen (physiol.), Dr.John Hall, Dr.David Wineland
Univ Colorado Chem department: Dr.Niels Damrauer, Dr.Joost de Gouw, Dr.Gordana Dukovic, Dr.Joel Eaves, Dr.Steven M. George, Dr.Douglas L. Gin, Dr.Seth Marder, Dr.Joseph Michl, Dr.Richard D. Noble, Dr.Margaret Tolbert, Dr.Veronica Vaida, Dr.Rainer Volkamer, Dr.David Walba, Dr.J.Mathias Weber,Dr.Wei Zhang, Dr. Paul Ziemann, Dr.Thomas Cech
USA Air Force Academy, Colorado, Physics and Chemistry departments:
Dr.Francis Chun, Dr.Kimberly de La Harpe,Dr.Alina Gearba-Sell,Dr.Randy Knize,Dr.Matthew McHarg
Dr.James Ayers,Dr.Gary Balaich,Dr.Todd Davis,Dr.Kim Gardner,Dr.Mary Hertz,Dr.Barry Hicks,
Dr.Scott Iacono director Chemistry Research Center
US Naval Academy, physics & chem dept. Michael Manicchia atom interferometry, Raj Basu liquid crystals, Rachel Carr experimental particle physics, Elena Cimpoiasu nanomaterials and composites, Allison Hall experimental particle physics, Joel Helton experimental condensed matter, Michelle Jamer condensed matter, magnetism, Seth Rittenhouse atomic molecular and optical physics, Jeffrey R. Vanhoy fast neutron-induced reactions, Richard Witt experimental nuclear physics, Professors Wayne Pearson,Joe Urban,Amy MacArthur, Shirley Lin crystal structures of N-4, Dr.Brian H. Morrow & Prof. Judith A.Harrison molecular dynamics vapor-liquid, Prof Shirley Lin & Dr.Marianne E.Burnett &Prof Melonie A.Teichert Titration Experiment, Dr.Christopher D.Stachurski,Prof Paul C.Trulove transport properties in aprotic ionic liquids.
SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga
Dr. Panchanathan , present day NSF, F.Fleming Crim, Brian Stone, James S. Olvestad, Dorothy E. Aronson
President Larry Summers
President now Lawrence Bacow
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, Dr. Elias Corey (chem), Dr. Walter Gilbert (chem), Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.Martin Karplus (chem)
Harvard Math dept
Harvard Math dept Noam Elkies (FP),Dennis Gaitsgory (FP),Robin Gottlieb (PP),Benedict Gross (FP),Joseph Harris (FP),Heisuke Hironaka (EM),Michael Hopkins (FP),Arthur Jaffe (FP),David Kazhdan (EM),Mark Kisin (FP),Peter Kronheimer (FP),Jacob Lurie (FP),Eric Maskin (FP),Barry Mazur (FP),Curtis McMullen (FP),David Mumford (EM),Martin Nowak (FP),Gerald Sacks (EM),Wilfried Schmid (FP),Yum-Tong Siu (FP),Shlomo Sternberg (EM),John Tate (EM),Cliff Taubes (FP),Hugh Woodin (FP),Horng-Tzer Yau (FP),Shing-Tung Yau (FP)
Texas A&M math department
Angela Allen, Michael Anshelevich, Benjamin Aurispa, Amy Austin, Dean Baskin, Guy Battle, Florent Baudier, Gregory Berkolaiko, Harold Boas, Kathryn Bollinger, Andrea Bonito, Michael Brannan, Tamara Carter, Goong Chen, Eric Chung, Vanessa Coffelt, Andrew Comech, Prabir Daripa,
Alan Demlow, Ronald DeVore, Ken Dykema, Yalchin Efendiev, Janice Epstein, Tamás Erdélyi, Simon Foucart, Erin Fry, Stephen Fulling, Rostislav Grigorchuk, Jean-Luc Guermond, Robert Gustafson, Boris Hanin, Yvette Hester, Irina Holmes, Peter Howard, Roger Howe, Bill Johnson, Maya Johnson,
Junehyuk Jung, Joe Kahlig, David Kerr, Kendra Kilmer, Joungdong Kim, Jeffrey Kuan, Peter Kuchment, Glenn Lahodny Jr, Joseph Landsberg, David Larson, Raytcho Lazarov, Sang Rae Lee,
Jennifer Lewis, Paulo Lima-Filho, Chun-Hung Liu, Benjamin Lynch, Matthias Maier, David Manuel,
Riad Masri, Laura Felicia Matusevich, Francis Narcowich, Volodymyr Nekrashevych, Constantin Onica, Patrick Orchard, Lee Panetta, Grigoris Paouris, Matthew Papanikolas, Joe Pasciak, Gregory Pearlstein, Rosanna Pearlstein, Guergana Petrova, Gilles Pisier, Alexei Poltoratski, Bojan Popov,
Eviatar Procaccia, Kumbakonam Rajagopal, Heather Ramsey, J.N. Reddy, Kamran Reihani, J. Maurice Rojas, Marco Roque-Sol, Eric Rowell, William Rundell, Vince Schielack, Thomas Schlumprecht, Todd Schrader, Sinjini Sengupta, Oksana Shatalov, Anne Shiu, N. Sivakumar,
John Slattery, Roger Smith, Frank Sottile, Peter Stiller, Emil Straube, Steven Taliaferro, Edriss Titi,
Marvin Tretkoff, Robin Tucker-Drob, Mariya Vorobets,Yaroslav Vorobets, Joe Ward, Jennifer Whitfield, Clarence Wilkerson, Sarah Witherspoon, Zhizhang Xie, Catherine Yan, Tian Yang, Philip Yasskin, Matthew Young, Guoliang Yu, Igor Zelenko, Jianxin Zhou
Texas A&M physics dept
Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky, Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh, Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy, Dr.Sheldon Glashow, Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.David Lee
MIT math dept.
Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,
Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan
President: Sally Kornbluth
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
Andrea Ghez, K. Barry Sharpless(chem), Carolyn Bertozzi(chem),Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Rainer Weiss, Dr.Jerome Friedman, Dr.Wolfgang Ketterle, Dr.Richard Schrock (chem)
LIST of Failed Physicists because they still believe electron is .5MeV, in no order, and so very stupid are they in physics, for they could not even understand the physics of angular momentum of two particles 938 to .5 rather than 840 to 105 MeV
Edward Witten, John Baez, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock, Larry Harson, Mark Barton, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electon is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa_
Yoichiro Nambu_
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber_
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr. _
Masatoshi Koshiba_
Riccardo Giacconi_
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman_
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall_
Richard E. Taylor_
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer_
William Alfred Fowler_
Kenneth G. Wilson_
James Watson Cronin_
Val Logsdon Fitch_
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg_
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
Edward Witten
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga
David Sainsbury Cambridge chancellor
Cambridge Physics Dept
Dr.Didier Queloz (phy), Dr.Richard Henderson (chem), Dr.David Thouless (phy), Dr.Duncan Haldane (phy), Dr.John Kosterlitz (phy), Dr.Michael Levitt (chem), Dr. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (chem), Dr.Roger Tsien (chem), Dr.Richard Schrock (chem), Dr.Alan McDiarmid (chem), Dr.John Pople (chem),
Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
Cambridge Math Dept
Alan Baker, Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain
Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler, Julia F. Knight logic journal, Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy, David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz, Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman, Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
Eternal-September.org
Wolfgang M. Weyand
Berliner Strasse
Bad Homburg
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 math
Metin Tolan
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
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
educ dept of Germany
> > Bettina Stark-Watzinger, Jens Brandenburg, Thomas Sattelberger, Kornelia Haugg, Judith Pirscher
Indian Institute of Technology
Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.
ETH Zurich
Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
Emmanuel Kowalski
Urs Lang
Rahul Pandharipande
Richard Pink
Tristan Riviere
Dietmar Salamon
Martin Schweizer
Mete Soner
Michael Struwe
Benjamin Sudakov
Alain Sznitman
Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner
Thomas Willwacher
Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
,Kurt Wuthrich (chem), Dr.Joel Mesot
University Bern
Christian Leumann
Walter Benjamin
Emil Theodor Kocher
Kurt Wuthrich
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter
Swiss education dept. Guy Parmelin
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-6, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> brain farto, why?
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:00:19 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> It is highly likely
Jan Burse continues to defile and demonize AP on Google Search :
Jan Burse defiling and demonizing nonstop for 20 years of AP:
Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....
SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga
Stanford University, math dept.
Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu
SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)
Stanford physics dept.
Douglas Osheroff, Dr.Robert Laughlin, Carl Wieman, Steven Chu,
Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Mason Yearian, Dr.Carolyn Bertozzi (chem), Dr.Roger Kornberg (chem), Dr.Michael Levitt (chem),Dr.William Moerner (chem), Dr.Thomas Sudhof (chem)
CalTech math dept
Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari
Matthias Flach, Anton N. Kapustin, Alexander Kechris
Alexei Kitaev, Matilde Marcolli, Nikolai Makarov, Vladimir Markovic, Hiroshi Oguri, Eric Rains, Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Barry Simon, Richard Wilson, Tom Graber, Sergei Gukov,
Elena Mantovan, Yi NI,
Caltech Physics Dept
Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics minnow
> WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:
UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)
UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner
Willard Libby (chem), Julian Schwinger (physics), Paul Boyer (chem), Andrea Ghez, James Fraser Stoddart (chem), Louis Ignarro (physio-medic)
UCLA math dept.
Donald Babbitt, Kirby Baker, Andrea Bertozzi, Mario Bonk, Lennart Carleson, Tony F-C Chan, Shiu-Yuen Cheng, Robert Edwards, Gregory Eskin, Hector Fattorini, Thomas Ferguson, Theodore Gamelin, John Garnett, David Gillman, Mark Green, Nathaniel Grossman, Alfred Hales, Robert Jennrich, Paul Johnson, Alan Laub, Thomas Liggett, Donald Martin, Sidney Port, James Ralston, Paul Roberts, Bruce Rothschild, Murray Schacher, Roberto Schonmann, Masamichi Takesaki, Terence Tao, Veeravalli Varadarajan, James White, Donald Ylvisaker
UCSD, Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept
Henry D.I. Abarbanel, Kam S. Arnold, Daniel P. Arovas, Richard D. Averitt, Julio T. Barreiro, Dimitri N. Basov, Steven Boggs, James G. Branson, Adam J. Burgasser, Leonid V. Butov, Alison Coil, Eva-Maria S. Collins, Max Di Ventra, Patrick H. Diamond, Fred C. Driscoll, Daniel H. Dubin,
Olga K. Dudko, Raphael M. Flauger, Michael M. Fogler, Alex Frano, George M. Fuller, Daniel R Green, Kim Griest, Benjamin Grinstein, Alexander Groisman, Tarun Grover, Jorge E. Hirsch, Michael Holst, Terence T. Hwa, Kenneth A. Intriligator, Elizabent Jenkins, Suckjoon Jun, Brian Keating, Dusan Keres, David Kleinfeld, Quinn M. Konopacky, Elena F. Koslover, Julius Kuti, Tongyan Lin, Aneesh V. Manohar, M. Brian Maple, John A. McGreevy, Thomas W. Murphy, Kaixuan Ni, Michael L. Norman, Thomas M O'Neil, Hans P. Paar, Mark Paddock, Jeremie Palacci, Tenio Popmintchev, Wouter-Jan Rappel, Karin M. Sandstrom, Ivan K. Schuller, Lu J. Sham, Vivek Sharma, Tatyana O. Sharpee, Brian Shotwell, Oleg Shpyrko, Elizabeth H Simmons, Sunil K. Sinha, Douglas E. Smith, Harry Suhl
Math dept Univ Calif, San Diego
Edward Bender, James Bunch, Thomas Enright, Ronald Evans, Jay Fillmore, Carl FitzGerald,
Michael Freedman, Adriano Garsia, Fan Graham, Leonard Haff, Hubert Halkin, Richard Hamilton, Bill Helton, Jim Lin, Alfred Manaster, John O'Quigley, Yose Rinott, Burt Rodin, Murray Rosenblatt, Linda Rothschild, Michael Sharpe, Lance Small, Don Smith, Harold Stark, Audrey Terras, Adrian Wadsworth, Nolan Wallach, John Wavrik, Daniel Wulbert
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 e.e. 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.
Question Caltech-- is the reason you keep teaching the ellipse is a conic even when AP proved it was the oval of a slant cut into the cone (see AP's proof below). Is the reason you keep teaching the ellipse is a conic because all the professors at Caltech have a "joke mind when it comes to science, a joke like Parry is just a joke in science and a failure in science".
Purdue Univ. physics & chemistry, Akira Suzuki (chem), Dr. Virgil Barnes, Dr. Duane Carmony, Dr. Thomas Clark, Dr. David Elmore, Dr. Norman Fuchs, Dr. James Gaidos, Dr. Nicholas Giordano, Dr. Laszlo Gutay, Dr. Samuel Harris, Dr. Mark Haugan, Dr. Andrew Hirsch, Dr.Tzee-Ke Kuo, Dr. Sherwin Love, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Thomas Moffett, Dr. Paul Muzikar, Dr. Hisao Nakanishi, Dr. Van Neie, Dr.Thomas Palfrey, Dr. Anant Ramdas, Dr, Ronald Reifenberger, Dr. Rolf Scharenberg, Dr. Donald Schlueter, Dr. Paul Simms, Dr. Arnold Tubis, Dr. Robert Willmann, Dr.
Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
OSU math faculty
Jean-Francois Lafont, David Anderson, Chunsheng Ban, Vitaly Bergelson, Janet Best, Luis Casian, Sergei Chmutov, James Cogdell, Ovidiu Costin, Rodica Costin, Michael Davis, Andrzej Derdzinski, Zbigniew Fiedorowicz, James Fowler, Avner Friedman, Martin Golubitsky, Ian Hamilton, John Harper, Ivo Herzog, Niles Johnson, Matthew Kahle, Eric Katz, Thomas Kerler, Barbara Keyfitz, Jan Lang, Alexander Leibman, Alan Loper, Wenzhi Luo, John Maharry, Jeffrey McNeal, Facundo Memoli, Crichton Ogle, Bishun Pandey, Grzegorz Rempala, Syed Tariq Rizvi, Nimish Shah, Aurel Stan, Saleh Tanveer, David Terman, Daniel Thompson, Fei-Ran Tian, Joseph Tien, Yulong Xing, Dongbin Xiu, Bradford Findell, Gregory Baker, Robert Brown, Dan Burghelea, Timothy Carlson, Herb Clemens, Thomas Dowling, Alexander Dynin, Zita Divis, Yuval Flicker, Harvey Friedman, Christian Friesen, Ulrich Gerlach, Robert Gold, Gerald Edgar
Univ Victoria
Mendicino &Vigneault-CSISspam-mill
Chancellor
Marion Buller
President
Kevin Hall
Provost
Dr. Valerie Kuehne, PhD
Academic staff
Univ of Victoria physics dept
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis
Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan. Dr.Andre Geim (physics)
Univ Manchester physics dept
Robert Appleby, Richard Battye, Robert Beswick, David Binks, Michael Birse, Stewart Boogert, Jens Chluba, Chris Conselice, Brian Cox, Mark Dickinson, Justin Evans, Kieran Flanagan, Jeffrey Forshaw, Sean Freeman, Michael Garrett, Roxanne Guenette, Roger Jones, Judith McGovern, Andrew Murray, Tim O'Brien, Christopher Parkes, Patrick Parkinson, Anna Scaife
Math dept. David Bell, Roger Bryant, Christopher Dodson, John Dold, Ronald Doney, Peter Eccles, Roger Plymen, Patrick Laycock, Jeff Paris, Mike Prest, Nige Ray, Toby Stafford, Ralph Stohr, Alex Wilkie, Marcus Webb, Korbinian Strimmer, David Silvester, Mark Kambites, Andrew Hazel
Todd B. Smith
> Univ. Dayton Physics dept.
>
> Rex L. Berney
> Bob Brecha
> Bruce Craver
> John Erdei
> Thomas P. Graham
> Donald Hirst
> Jenn Hyland
> Jay Mathews
> Robert Merithew
> Brendon Mikula
> George K. Miner
> J. Michael O'Hare
> Leno M Pedrotti
> William N. Plick
> Randall Schaurer
> Elizabeth Smith
> Ivan Sudakow
> Perry Yaney
>
wiki, wiki Revision history of " James Kibo Parry Moroney"
www.exampleproblems dot com wiki
(cur | prev) 03:21, 13 March 2021 Todd (talk | contribs ... (10,274 bytes)
toddbsmith
Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,
Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin, Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Dr.John Clarke, Dr.Marvin Cohen, Dr.Michael Crommie, Dr.Joel Fajans, Dr. Roger Falcone, Dr.Mary Gaillard, Dr.Gabriel Gann, Dr.Naomi Ginsberg, Dr.Heather Gray, Dr.Hartmut Haeffner, Dr.Lawrence Hall, Dr.Oskar Hallatschek, Dr.Wick Haxton, Dr.Frances Hellman, Dr.Petr Horava, Dr.Barbara Jacak, Dr.Bob Jacobsen, Dr.Steven Kahn, Dr.Dan Kasen, Dr.Edgar Knobloch, Dr.Shimon Kolkowitz, Dr.Yury Kolomensky, Dr.Alessandra Lanzara, Dr.Stephen Leone, Dr.Eric Ma,... the physics faculty reads almost as long as a army of soldiers, please forgive any names that AP left out, please forgive...
Univ California Berkeley math department
Carolyn Abbot-- geometry group theory
ian Agol -- low dimensional topology (what a relief that is for me and him, for dimensions beyond 3rd are all fakery)
Alexander Alldridge -- Supergeometry (never heard of such a thing, let's hope he can super solve Jan's error of never understanding that a entry cut near the cone apex has a asymmetrical arclength compared to exit cut)
Denis Auroux-- symplectic topology and mirror symmetry (this expertise in symmetry is called for-- so many think a cut of a cone is a ellipse when anyone with a halfbrain can see it is a oval)
Richard Bamler-- geometric analysis, differential geometry (sounds like a heavy weight in geometry and this cone problem should be easy for Richard)
Robert Bryant-- many geometry expertises
Zhiqi Chen -- differential geometry and although a visiting scholar, we should never play bias to whomever can answer the question of no ellipse is a conic but only a cylinder section
James Conway-- contact and symplectic geometry (what in the world is symplectic-- better not ask)
Heinz Cordes-- classical analysis (hope that does not mean classical Old Math)
Ved Datar-- differential geometry (now, how fast can these guys compute the arclength along sections of the cone-- fast as in 5 minutes or fast as in 2 days)
David Eisenbud-- algebraic geometry
Mark Haiman-- algebraic geometry
Jenny Harrison-- geometric measure (perhaps measuring the arclength of cone sections is what is needed)
Robin Hartshorne-- history of geometry (well, well, why does it take till 2016, for any mathematician to realize the ellipse was never a conic section, rather, it was the oval)
Wu-Yi Hsiang-- differential geometry (and a long long time ago Dr. Hsiang sent me his manuscript of a alleged proof of Kepler Packing, thanks)
Michael Hutchings-- geometry
Marina Iliopoulou-- incidence geometry
Brian Krummel -- geometric analysis
Tim Laux -- geometric analysis
David Li-Bland-- differential geometry
John Lott-- differential geometry
Kathryn Mann-- geometry
David Nadler-- geometric representation
Martin Olsson-- arithmetic geometry
Kenneth Ribet-- algebraic geometry
Alan Schoenfeld-- math education
Vivek Shende-- geometry
Isadore Singer-- geometry
Zvezdelina Stankova-- algebraic geometry
Bernd Sturmfels-- algebraic geometry
Hongbin Sun-- hyperbolic geometry (the hyperbolic geometry may come in handy in showing that the cone section cannot be an ellipse)
Peter Teichner-- geometric topology
Dmitry Tonkonog-- geometry
Michael Viscardi-- geometric representation
Alan Weinstein-- geometry
Lauren Williams-- geometry
Mariusz Wodzicki-- geometry
Joseph Wolf-- geometry
Hung-Hsi Wu-- geometry
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler
Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Kelly Meighen
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
Uppsala Univ,
Anders Hagfeldt, Alm,Assarsson,Avelin,Beas,Berg,Bill,Brannstrom,Backe,Carlsson,Dieterich,Edsjo,Eklund,Gauffin,Gustavsson,Gut,Hejhal,Hildebrandsson,Kaijser,Kirlic,Klimek,Landelius,Lindahl,Lindell,Molin,Niklasson,Pan,Persson,Randler,
> Rubinsztein,Sigstam,Skarby,Stoltenberg-Hansen,Stoyanoska,Stromquist,Sundbaum,Svensson,Taub,Tegby,Waara,Wiback,Zina,Ostergren
Stockholm University
Math logic
Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov
Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom, Rikard Bogvad
Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger, Erik Palmgren
Torbjorn Tambour
Rector: Astrid Soderbergh Widding
Stockholm Univ physics
Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen,
Swedish physics, et al
Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)
University Gothenburg
Bernt Wennberg
Aila Sarkka
Univ Stockholm Physics dept
Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
John Rundgren
Princeton University Math dept
Michael Aizenman, Manjul Bhargava, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Zeev Dvir, Weinan E, Charles Fefferman, David Gabai, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Wu-Chung Hsiang, Alexandru Ionescu, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb, Adam Marcus,
Fernando Codá Marques, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri, Igor Rodnianski, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan, Goro Shimura, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Gang Tian, Hale Trotter, Vlad Vicol, Paul C. Yang, Shou-Wu Zhang
President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics)
Princeton Univ physics dept
Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, Alexander Polyakov, Frans Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten, F.Duncan Haldane (physics), Russell Hulse (physics), Joseph Taylor (physics), Dr. David MacMillan (chem), James Peebles (physics), Daniel Tsui (physics)
Dartmouth College
Dartmouth College:Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble, Asher Auel, Peter Doyle, Anne Gelb, Marcia Groszek, Ethan Levien, Peter J Mucha, Rosa C. Orellana, Scott D. Pauls, Daniel N. Rockmore, Thomas R. Shemanske, John, D Trout, Erik van Erp, John Voight, Dorothy I. Wallace, David L. Webb, Dana P. Williams, Peter Winkler
Miles P. Blencowe, Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, Robyn Millan, Hans Mueller, Elisabeth Newton, Roberto Onofrio, Alex Rimberg, Barrett N. Rogers, John R. Thorstensen, Lorenza Viola, Martin N. Wybourne, Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner
Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
Physics dept
Joao Rodrigues
Somnath Bhattacharyya
John Carter
Andrew Chen
Darell Comins
Robert De Mello Koch
Arthur Every
Andrew Forbes
Kelvin Goldstein
Vishnu Jejjala
Robert Joubert
Jonathan Keartland
Nukri Komin
Bruce Mellado
Deena Naidoo
Mervin Naidoo
Alex Quandt
Elias Sideras-Haddad
Martin Ntwaeaborwa
Dr.John Burland (engr)
Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)
Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
Dr. D. Brijlall
Dr. D Day
Dr. DB Lortan
Dr. A Maharaj
Dr. S Moyo
Dr. S Rajah
Dr. D Singh
University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
Betsie Jonck
Jesse Alt
Margaret Archibald
Charlotte Brennan
Sonja Currie
Alexander Davison
Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
Marie Grobbelaar
Yorick Hardy
Meira Hockman
Sameerah Jamal
Abdul Kara
Arnold Knopfmacher
Wen Chi Kou
Christopher Kriel
Rugare Kwashira
Florian Luca
Ronnie Maartens
Carminda Mennen
Manfred Moller
Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
Augustine Munagi
Loyiso Nongxa
Bruce Watson
Yevhen Zelenyuk
Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell, Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin Chen, Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart
Chancellor Steven Point
Math dept University British Columbia
Michael Bennett, Jim Bryan, Sabin Cautis, Albert Chau, James Collander, Daniel Coombs, Ailana Fraser, Michael Friedlander, Richard Gerd Froese, Julia Yulia Gordon, Stephen James Gustafson, Jonathan Hermon, Kalle Karu, Young-Heon Kim, Izabella Laba, Philip Loewen, Colin MacDonald, Gregory Martin, Rachel Ollivier, Cristoph Ortner, Anthony Peirce, Sebastien Picard, Yaniv Plan, Elina Robeva, Lior Silberman, Gordon Slade, Stephanie van Willigenburg, Michael Jeffrey Ward, Brian Wetton, Ben Williams, Joshua Zahl.
AP writes:: According to the Mullenweg & Myers Universal TEST, none of the above persons mentioned can admit the Slant cut of Cone is Oval, not ellipse and therefore their degree in science is Null and Void.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
This oval, with only one axis of symmetry, resembles a chicken egg.An oval (from Latin ovum 'egg') is a closed curve in a planewhich resembles the outline of an egg.[1][2][3] The term is not very specific, but in some areas of mathematics (projective geometry, technical drawing, etc.), it is given a more precise definition, which may include either one or two axes of symmetry of an ellipse. In common English, the term is used in a broader sense: any shape which reminds one of an egg.[4] The three-dimensional version of an oval is called an ovoid.[2]
The term oval when used to describe curves in geometry is not well defined, except in the context of projective geometry. Many distinct curves are commonly called ovals or are said to have an "oval shape". Generally, to be called an oval, a plane curve should resemblethe outline of an egg or an ellipse. In particular, these are common traits of ovals:
- they are differentiable (smooth-looking),[5] simple (not self-intersecting), convex, closed, and plane curves;
- their shape does not depart much from that of an ellipse; and
To the definition of an ovoid.- an oval typically has an axis of symmetry, but this is not required.
Here are examples of ovals described elsewhere:
An ovoid is the surface in three-dimensional space generated by rotating an oval curve about an axis of symmetry. The adjectives ovoidal and ovate mean having the characteristic of being an ovoid, and are often used as synonyms for "egg-shaped".
To the definition of an oval in a projective plane.- In a projective plane a set Ω of points is called an oval, if:
- Any line l meets Ω in at most two points, and
- For any point P ∈ Ω, there exists exactly one tangent line t through P, i.e., t ∩ Ω = {P}.
For finite planes (i.e., the set of points is finite) there is a more convenient characterization:[6]
- For a finite projective plane of order n (i.e., any line contains n + 1 points) a set Ω of points is an oval if and only if |Ω| = n + 1 and no three points are collinear(on a common line).
An ovoid in a projective space is a set Ω of points such that:
- Any line intersects Ω in at most 2 points,
- The tangents at a point cover a hyperplane (and nothing more), and
- Ω contains no lines.
.svg)
An oval egg shape.In the finite case only for dimension 3, there exist ovoids. A convenient characterization is:
- In a 3-dimensional finite projective space of order n > 2 any pointset Ω is an ovoid if and only if |Ω| and no three points are collinear.[7]
and no three points are collinear.The shape of an egg is approximated by the "long" half of a prolate spheroid, joined to a "short" half of a roughly spherical ellipsoid, or even a slightly oblate spheroid. These are joined at the equator and share a principal axis of rotational symmetry, as illustrated above. Although the term egg-shaped usually implies a lack of reflection symmetry across the equatorial plane, it may also refer to true prolate ellipsoids. It can also be used to describe the two-dimensional figure that, if revolved around its major axis, produces the three-dimensional surface.