3-Sam Wormley says science education should be a con game Stanford Univ Physics dept agrees Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, for they continue to teach fake con artistry- ellipse a conic when it never was
Churning Nitwit
3-Sam Wormley says science education should be a con game Stanford Univ Physics dept agrees Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, for they continue to teach fake con artistry- ellipse a conic when it never was
3-Sam Wormley says science education should be a con game Stanford Univ Physics dept agrees Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, for they continue to teach fake con artistry- ellipse a conic when it never was
Is this the way of Stanford Univ-- rather than correct their mistakes, they send out a fleet of barking insane dogs, rather than teach the STUDENTS of Stanford Univ the truth.
The Ellipse is a perpendicular axes Symmetry and the Oval has no perpendicular axes symmetry. A slanted cut in the Cone is always a Oval, never a ellipse.
So, will Stanford side and be dragged down into a sewer gutter of shame of science. Or, will Stanford wake up, admit mistakes and stop teaching students mindrot, insane math.
Michael Moroney writes:
12:00 PM (7 hours ago)
kibo Parry Moroney is so insane that he still thinks 938 is 12% short of 945. So insane that he barks each and every day the same error filled garbage. And it looks as though the faculty of math and physics of Stanford side with this barking dog and his pal Franz.
Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Dr. Terence Tao, still teaching ellipse is a conic [...]
Maybe he just read my simple *proof* which shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses. (See below.)
x Some preliminaries:
x Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
x in the proof:
x ^ x
x |
x -+- <= x=h
x .' | `.
x . | .
x | | |
x ' | '
x `. | .'
x y <----------+ <= x=0
x
x Cone (side view):
x .
x /|\
x / | \
x /b | \
x /---+---' <= x = h
x / |' \
x / ' | \
x / ' | \
x x = 0 => '-------+-------\
x / a | \
x Proof:
x r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
x y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
x Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
x qed
AP writes: I can see that a young dumb professor of math like Dr. Tao would never want to admit to mistakes, but I cannot fathom that the entire rest of UCLA would agree to nutbag, nutjob math like ellipse is a conic. All you have to do, to verify for yourself, is simply take a Kerr or Mason lid and poke it inside a paper cone and see for yourself, it traces out a oval, not the ellipse. Besides, it is GUARANTEED ASSURETY the cyclinder slant cut is an ellipse, and Dr. Block, are you that stupid as is Dr. Tao to think both the cone and cylinder are identical slant cuts. I mean, you really do not belong as Chancellor of UCLA if you think both the cylinder and cone are ellipse slant cuts. You do not belong as Chancellor, you do not belong in science, and both you and Dr. Tao should leave the field of education.
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
President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)
Stanford physics dept.
Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian
- hide quoted text -
#14
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section//ellipse-oval 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.
Length: 21 pages
#15
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition// ellipse-oval series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In November of 2019, I was challenged into giving a well-defined definition of Oval, since Old Math Geometry never provided a well defined definition of Oval. I dutifully well defined this important class of geometry figures. And whilst completing that task of a well defined definition, I found a second proof that the ellipse is never a conic section, always a cylinder section, for it is the oval that is the conic section at a slant cut. This second proof is a mere one paragraph long and is a Projective Geometry proof that the slant cut in a cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
Caution: I am worried that ascii-art is messed up and so this book is in rtf file not pdf.
Cover Picture: a cone and cylinder on a cutting board ready to be cut at a slant, and ready to view in silhouette form.
Length: 34 pages
