The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Synthetic Geometry proof and Analytical Geometry proof that Conic is
a Oval, never an ellipse// yes Apollonius was wrong

Replies: 5   Last Post: Oct 7, 2017 1:48 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
Re: mounting evidence Re: ..proof that Conic is a Oval, never an
ellipse// yes Apollonius was wrong

Posted: Oct 7, 2017 12:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.