Re: Is an ellipse a conic section?

[Galen Riggi]

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 9/29/2022 8:21 AM, Marshall Lett wrote:
>> I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it
>> was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says
>> it is not. Who am I supposed to believe?
>
> It's up to you to decide, whether to believe your actual teachers and
> actual mathematicians, or some random 🤡 who self-awards himself the
> title "King of Science".

this personality is saying you bad teeth americacans are
*_state_terrorists_* global scale, the reason for which you'll be kicked
out of this planet, not by Russians, but by the people of the earth. You
braindead lying beasts. That you khakhole khazars, knowingly can decade to
this *_subhuman_excrement_* level, it's hard to believe.

Here’s Why The U.S. Blew Up Nord Stream Pipeline!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JcC6DdGpe5FS/

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?

> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> >
> > Who am I supposed to believe?

Mr.Sulzberger rather have all New York residents believe slant cut of cone is ellipse, rather than publish the truth in The New York Times Science section. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.


Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> Kibo on Joseph Kahn of The New York Times rather publish kibo's nonsense of conic than AP's truth-- Slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, therefore, slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > >
> > > Who am I supposed to believe?



> Kibo Parry M. along with his 938 is 12% short of 945 wrote:
>
> > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> >
> >
> > Some preliminaries:
> >
> > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > in the proof:
> >
> > ^ x
> > |
> > -+- <= x=h
> > .' | `.
> > . | .
> > | | |
> > ' | '
> > `. | .'
> > y <----------+ <= x=0
> >
> > Cone (side view):
> > .
> > /|\
> > / | \
> > /b | \
> > /---+---' <= x = h
> > / |' \
> > / ' | \
> > / ' | \
> > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > / a | \
> >
> > Proof:
> >
> > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> >
> > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> >
> > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> >
> > qed
> >
>
>
> The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.
> A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
>
>
> 1) Picture diagram of problem, showing oval for cone, and ellipse for cylinder.
>
>
>
> 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
> | |
> | |
> | |
>
>
>
> Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
> Archimedes Plutonium
> --------------------
> AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
>
> Let us analyze AP's Proof
>
> On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>
> Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
> section = Oval, never ellipse
>
> Array proof simply means we cut out all details and get to the very heart of the proof. No sideshow dressing, just the heart of the proof.
>
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
>
>
> E
> __
> .-' `-.
> .' `.
> / \
> ; ;
> | G c | H
> ; ;
> \ /
> `. .'
> `-. _____ .-'
> F
>
>
>
> Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
>
> In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
>
> The side view of a cylinder is this
>
> | |
> | |
> | |
>
> That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
>
>
> But the side view of the cone is
>
> /\E
> /c \
> F / \
>
>
> The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
>
>

> > 3rd published book
> >
> > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> >
> > In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> > #12-2, 11th published book
> >
> > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > Preface:
> > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> >
> > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> >
> > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
>
>
> > Hi Marshall, you can figure this out yourself, and not have to ask others for the truth of Conics. Hold a Cylinder and Cone next to you and imagine a slant cut in both. In your mind's eye you can see the slant cut in Cylinder is symmetrical in the entrance angle as well as the exit angle and symmetrical to the center axis. A cylinder slant cut is Ellipse. But notice the Cone is having only 1 axis of symmetry-- a vertical cut from apex to base of cone meeting the base at a perpendicular angle. You cut a cone anywhere along its center line the two cut parts are not equal to each other. You cut the cylinder at its center line and you have two new cylinders, shorter than the original but identical and thus symmetrical.
> >
> > The Cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry, the Cone just 1. The slant cut of cylinder gives only a ellipse. The slant cut of Cone cannot deliver a ellipse for the Cone has just one axis of symmetry.
> >
> >
> > Kibo on Joseph Kahn of The New York Times rather publish kibo's nonsense of conic than AP's truth-- Slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, therefore, slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.
> >
> >
> > Kibo Parry M wants The New York Times to publish his nonsense for which AP wants the New York State Board of Education to pull the license of science publishing from _The New York Times_ for their newspaper has become nothing but a propaganda billboard for Einstein, and mocking all scientists working in physics.
> >
> > The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
> >
> > Kibo Parry M. wrote:
> >
> > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> > >
> > >
> > > Some preliminaries:
> > >
> > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > in the proof:
> > >
> > > ^ x
> > > |
> > > -+- <= x=h
> > > .' | `.
> > > . | .
> > > | | |
> > > ' | '
> > > `. | .'
> > > y <----------+ <= x=0
> > >
> > > Cone (side view):
> > > .
> > > /|\
> > > / | \
> > > /b | \
> > > /---+---' <= x = h
> > > / |' \
> > > / ' | \
> > > / ' | \
> > > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > > / a | \
> > >
> > > Proof:
> > >
> > > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > >
> > > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > >
> > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > >
> > > qed
> > >
> >
> >
> > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> >
> > The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
> >
> > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
> >
> >
> > 1) Picture diagram of problem, showing oval for cone, and ellipse for cylinder.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> >
> >
> >
> > Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > --------------------
> > AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
> >
> > Let us analyze AP's Proof
> >
> > On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> >
> > Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
> > section = Oval, never ellipse
> >
> > Array proof simply means we cut out all details and get to the very heart of the proof. No sideshow dressing, just the heart of the proof.
> >
> > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> >
> >
> > E
> > __
> > .-' `-.
> > .' `.
> > / \
> > ; ;
> > | G c | H
> > ; ;
> > \ /
> > `. .'
> > `-. _____ .-'
> > F
> >
> >
> >
> > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> >
> > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> >
> > The side view of a cylinder is this
> >
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> >
> > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> >
> >
> > But the side view of the cone is
> >
> > /\E
> > /c \
> > F / \
> >
> >
> > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> >
> >
> > Kibo Parry M. the 30 year nonstop stalker fuckdog of sci.math & sci.physics
> > > On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 2:18:53 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >"mindless fuckdog"
> > Kibo Parry M, I thought if you did not like a newspaper, you called it a "rag" not a fuckdog, is this the new street alley slang?
> > > >"Drag Queen of Science"
> > > > tarded:
> > > > Now that sure was quite dumb and stoopid of you, wasn't it! Surely
> > > > Dartmouth didn't want their good name sullied by such an anti-Semitic
> > > > remark. And they did the right thing.
> > > >
> > Kibo, why does the The New York Times tarnish the name of Dartmouth College by teaching slant cut is ellipse when in truth it is a oval, and that the Times science section still preaches Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and that no-one at the Times ever realized calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Is that why, Kibo, you call the The New York Times the Drag Queen of Science??????
> > 
> > > > But you didn't learn. You cannot learn. Later Dartmouth decided they
> > > > didn't want their good name sullied by your bad math and science, so
> > > > they warned you not to post such garbage from a dartmouth.edu account.
> > > > But you didn't listen, so they fired your sorry ass for repeatedly doing
> > > > so. Dartmouth has an excellent reputation, and they need to protect it
> > > > from anti-Semitic posts and bad science.
> > > > I'd like to see ANY NYT article that ends with "praise be to Einstein--
> > > > semi god of physics". You just made that up.
> > > > Freedom of speech applies to the government, not a university or
> > > > newspaper. You could (and now do!) post your garbage freely.
> > > > Evidence of this? What, there isn't any? You made that up, too?
> > > > Since you are just a nobody of math and science, your "vote" doesn't
> > > > count for anything.
> > > > The ellipse formed from a plane intersecting a cone is not symmetric
> > > > around the axis of the cone, but is still symmetric in two dimensions
> > > > around a different line. Many have tried to tell you this, but you are
> > > > simply too dumb and stoopid to realize
> > >
> > > 3rd published book
> > >
> > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > •
> > > •
> > >
> > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > >
> > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > >
> > > In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > > #12-2, 11th published book
> > >
> > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > > Preface:
> > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> > >
> > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> > >
> > > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> > > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Mrs. Kathleen Kingsbury, Mr.Sulzberger is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Marshall Lett need not ask the question. Rather have all New York residents believe slant cut of cone is ellipse, rather than publish the truth in The New York Times Science section. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > >
> > > Who am I supposed to believe?

Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".

[Archimedes Plutonium]

209th published book

Fair Journalism in reporting Science news-- The New York Times, Google, Wikipedia, NATURE, SCIENCE, magazines// Sociology

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle edition)

Preface: This book is about the unfair reporting and the mis-reporting of truth in science. The Atom Totality theory arrived in 1990, yet here in 2022, no major science magazine has given it any coverage. The truth about slant cut in cones, the conic sections arrived in 2016, yet here in 2022, no newspaper or magazine has covered the truth of slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. This is science reporting of news at its worst. Science magazines daily pelt the world with fake science of Big Bang, black holes, Standard Model, dark matter and dark energy, yet they have no space or time in their magazine to even say-- in 2016 AP discovered the slant cut of cone is truly a oval, never the ellipse.

The discovery that the real true electron of Atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law with the proton torus, while the 0.5MeV particle is not the electron of Atoms was discovered by AP in 2016-2017, yet here it is 6 years later in 2022, and no newspaper or magazine covering the story. Other than the Atom Totality theory, the discovery of the true electron of atoms are two of the largest science stories in all of human history.

What is the reason for the unfair and ugly reporting of science news? It is a power and money struggle. The New York Times will not publish AP's conic is oval, not ellipse for this newspaper wants never a Gentile to get credit for finding the truth. The science magazines will not publish the truth about conic sections for they --SCIENCE AAAS, Science News, Nature, Scientific American are payed money to keep out anything that upsets the applecart.

The Internet is new to the world, taking off about 1993 and having search engines. These started out as Advertisement companies, but quickly became digital Journalism without the fair practices needed for "good journalism" such as "counterpoint". This means that a Google Search of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall should not be millions and millions of Google search hits, all sugar coated-- "look at the baby boy genius". This is not journalism of science, but propaganda kiosks. A Google search of the above mentioned should have a Counterpoint on their first page saying something like--- in math, too stupid to acknowledge a slant cut in cone is oval, never ellipse. In physics-- should say --- too stupid to ever ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.

When it comes to science journalism, the The New York Times, SCIENCE, Science News, Scientific American, Nature, Google search, Wikipedia are propaganda kiosks and not science truth in reporting.


Cover Picture: Strangely enough the very first science journalism that occurred on Earth was the news reporting by Thales in Ancient Greek times, and what he reported would end up being Earth shattering for science. Sadly though, in modern times we are in a sewer of science reporting. This cover picture is my iphone photograph of a Google search on Thales rubbed amber.


Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BHHLWNPW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 5, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 892 KB

• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 91 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Michael Roston, Carolyn Ryan is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

> Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.

>
> Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?

> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > >
> > > > Who am I supposed to believe?

> Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> 
>
>
> > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
>

> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?

> The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
>
> And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.

> > > Kibo Parry M. along with his 938 is 12% short of 945 wrote:

> Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.

> > > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>

> 

> > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.
> > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.

> > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
>

> > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > >
> > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > >
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > >
> > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > >
> > >
> > > But the side view of the cone is
> > >
> > > /\E
> > > /c \
> > > F / \
> > >
> > >
> > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > >

> > > > The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.

> > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.

> > > >
> > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
> > > >

> > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.

> > > > Let us analyze AP's Proof

> > > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > > >
> > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > >
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > >
> > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > >
> > > > /\E
> > > > /c \
> > > > F / \
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
>
> 
> 
> > > > > 3rd published book
> > > > >
> > > > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled

> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > •
> > > > > •
> > > > >
> > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> > > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited

> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > > #12-2, 11th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > > > > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > > > > Language ‏ : ‎ English

> > > > > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB

> > > > > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Mr. Sulzberger, Michael Roston, Carolyn Ryan is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

> 
> > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> >
> > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > 
> >
> >
> > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> >
> > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
> >
> > And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
> > > > Kibo Parry M. along with his 938 is 12% short of 945 wrote:
> > Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
> > > > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> >
> >
> > 
> > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.

> > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Michael Roston, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.

[Shining star]

Come right now ----> http://thegreatestmeetupplace.mywebcommunity.org/firstpage.php

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kibo better than Roger Penrose of Oxford Univ in math-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Roger Penrose, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr. Roger Penrose should be drummed out of math completely. At least the dawn is awakening in Kibo, that cone has but one axis of symmetry, yet a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the idiot-of-math Dr.Roger Penrose of Oxford Univ, run and hide, run Roger, hide Roger. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though your so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Anyone who has taught mathematics at the college freshman level (as I have at Georgia Tech as a TA) went through the fairly simple process, using analytic geometry to define what is a conic section. If you can follow this, just perform these steps: First, write the definition of a cone (in x, y, z space). It is not difficult. Then, write the equation of an inclined plane in three-space. Then, if you have done the work accurately, you can solve these two equations simultaneously. That gives the locus of all points common to the cone and the inclined plane. (This is the definition of a section.) The resulting equation will be an ellipse, a circle, a parabola, or a hyperbola, depending on the exact inclined plane you have chosen. By the way, this was first demonstrated in about 300 BC, even before the original Archmedes (not the Plutonium version.)
> >
> > earle
> > *
> Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> x=k plane.
>
> I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
>
> This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> z=m for some m.
>
>
> Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.

This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.

---------

Kibo of course is a loud math in sci.math and sci.physics and should never have posted but watched and listened.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled

• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited

• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.


Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English

File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB

Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

-Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

--------

[Archimedes Plutonium]

7-David Brooks🤡Michael Roston🤡 "Court Jester of Math"

> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Well, Kibo, fire them all and be done with it, if they cannot admit the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse.

Mr. Brooks and Mr. Roston, what is the point in even having a The New York Times Science Section, when it cannot even answer the question of a New Yorker as Mr. Marshall Lett who wants to know if slant cut of cone is ellipse or oval.

Just because the NYT hates the guts of AP, and wants to never print his name, is no excuse in answering Mr. Lett's question. Besides, if NYT never answers the question, shows only that likely all of the NYT stories are just propaganda bias. You cannot answer science, means the rest of your newspaper is unreliable.


> > Kibo Parry M, why you hate the NYT with David Brooks and Michael Roston, is it because everyone there cannot ask the simple question of AP-- which is the Atom's true electron-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle, is that why you hate the NYT newspaper--so so dumb in science.
> >
> > The AP mantra of current science where most people fail:
> > > > 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.
> > David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > >
> > > > Who am I supposed to believe?

> > > Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.
> > >
> > > The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.
> > >
> > > The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> > > David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???

> > >
> > >
> > > > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?

> > > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > > >

> > > > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> > > >

> > > > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?

996--3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

997-Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

998-#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

999-Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.


Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)

1001#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)