On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 5:02:40 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now we have more and more supporting evidence coming in that Conic section is an Oval, never an ellipse. > > 1) in order to get a ellipse out of a cone, what we have to do is use a knife that makes a butterfly cut > such as this > > \ / > \ / > > And once cut we flatten out the butterfly cut to be an ellipse > > And in the same manner, a Cylinder section is always a Ellipse, and to get a oval from cylinder we use this Butterfly cut, an asymmetrical butterfly cut. > > 2) Another new supporting evidence is the square pyramid replacing the cone. Now a square pyramid section if the conic was a ellipse, we should expect the pyramid section to be a rectangle, for the rectangle is the analog of the ellipse. Instead, what we get in a cut is a trapezoid, the analog of a oval. > > So, more and more evidence mounts, that the conic section is oval, never ellipse. > >
In that evidence of (2) begs the question of what is the analog of the Cylinder, since the cylinder section is truly a ellipse, but the cone section is an oval. So the analog of the Cylinder is a Rectangular solid and if you section the solid, you get just longer rectangles. So that a rectangle is the analog of an ellipse. Now if you section the square pyramid you get a trapezoid, never a rectangle.
So that is probably the most effective argument that anyone preaching a ellipse is a conic, is a failed screwball of perception.
The cone and cylinder is analog to square pyramid and rectangular solid.
Only a magnanimous fiend would want you to believe that a conic and cylinder both yield a ellipse, when one figure is OBVIOUSLY different from the other. Creeps, want other people to be creeps like themselves.