• Volney, does Oxford Uni enjoy a math failure Dr.Andrew Wiles who cannot

    From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Nov 24 13:43:32 2023
    My 3rd published book

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

    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, My 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)

    Can_Univ Colorado,Dr.Eric Cornell,Dr.Stanley Cohen,Dr.John Hall,Dr.David Wineland,NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem,Purdue Univ_France Cordova step inside Uni Colorado chem or physics lab and do Water Electrolysis where you end up weighing the masses of
    hydrogen compared to oxygen? If AP is correct hydrogen is 1/4 mass of oxygen, and if mainstream is correct 1/8.

    Jim Pennino & Volney throw their FBI & CIA spam into this newsgroup, for they like to destroy a newsgroup-- just look at sci.chem.

    Of the first 20 posts in sci.math today 80% are spam from FBI,CIA of their ISP caretaker-- Kibo Parry Volney paid for by NSF. The spam in sci.math and sci.physics are mostly ""pretend spam""-- they pretend to be spammers that is the government is doing
    the spamming. They feel that newsgroups are owned by them and then Google cannot kick them out for spamming for they are govt. Facebook faced the same problem when the govt wanted to spam its platform but Zuckerberg kept them out, as I last recall. The
    govt pays spammers like Kibo Parry and his pack of miscreants. Much of the problem is drag net spam created by the govt, but drag net spam ruins a newsgroup but small minded bureaucrats could never understand that. Another problem is low class mindsets
    in the dept of education who upon seeing someone in sci.math or physics challenge the mainstream of what is taught in schools, the low class mindset is to attack attack and attack so that school kids can be propagandized to learn the Earth is flat and
    electrons protons are Ball and stick entities.

    Can_Air-Naval Acad,Dr.Mary Hertz,Dr.Barry Hicks,
    Dr.Scott Iacono,Dr.Shirley Lin,Dr.Marianne E.Burnett,NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova step inside Academy's chem or physics lab and do Water Electrolysis where you end up weighing the masses of hydrogen compared to oxygen?

    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.

    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.


    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


    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 4:51:39 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
    "self diagnosed as insane"

    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.

    Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I
    certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.


    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.


    Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.


    On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
    Physics minnow
    WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:

    What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself.

    Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
    Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
    On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:



    ---quoting Wikipedia ---
    Controversy
    Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public
    Internet access on "an experimental basis."
    --- end quote ---

    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    Dr. Panchanathan , present day
    NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
    France Anne Cordova
    Subra Suresh (bioengineer)
    Arden Lee Bement Jr. (nuclear engineering)
    Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
    Neal Francis Lane
    John Howard Gibbons 1993

    Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
    Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

    Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne


    News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

    Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM (yesterday)
    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

    I received a