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

Topic: 6)Harvard math dept fired//Harvard siding with the nutjob Moroney on
ellipse is conic and the nutjob on geothermal

Replies: 3   Last Post: Sep 28, 2017 8:41 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
francois.grondin2003@gmail.com

Posts: 25
Registered: 11/27/14
Re: 6)Harvard math dept fired//Harvard siding with the nutjob Moroney
on ellipse is conic and the nutjob on geothermal

Posted: Sep 27, 2017 4:43 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On September 27 2017, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Harvard siding with the nutjob Moroney on ellipse is conic and the nutjob on geothermal
>
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:19:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > Physics and Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> >

> > >5)HARVARD's entire math dept. fired//unable to confirm that oval is conic
> > >not ellipse//as insane in math as Michael Moroney

> >
> > Your fantasies aren't going to come true...
> >

> > >On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:02:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>
> > >> No you haven't. Jan and I have asked you to either post a proof the
> > >> conic section is never an ellipse, or find a flaw in the Dandelin Spheres
> > >> proof many times, but so far, you never have. Lots of whining from you,
> > >> but never any proof.

> >
> > >Below is a proof that oval is a conic section, never an ellipse.
> >
> > <snip spam>
> >
> > And again, you spam the same thing yet again, and nowhere in your spam
> > is there any proof a conic section is never an ellipse, or any flaw in the
> > Dandelin Spheres proof.
> >
> > You do claim:
> >

> > >But also, I proved that no conic section is ever a ellipse-- but rather,
> > >always a oval.

> >
> > Claiming that you proved that no conic section is ever a ellipse is not a
> > proof that no conic section is ever a ellipse!!!
> >
> > Why not just admit that you cannot prove your claim that an ellipse is not
> > a conic section?
> >
> > <snip spam>
> >
> > And what's with the lists?

>
> Hey, Moroney, Harvard siding with you on geothermal-- time to eat some Boston baked beans, eh
>
>
>
> (1)
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>

> >
> > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling
> > but even these are solar power in disguise. They pump water from wells
> > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat
> > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the
> > water back into the ground. The water is about 55F out of the ground.

>
>
>
> (2)
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>

> >
> > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What
> > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water
> > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer,
> > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building
> > >in the winter.

> >
> > In other words, glorified solar energy. Solar energy stored and averaged
> > out over many, many years.
> >

>
> (3)
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>

> >
> > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they
> > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any
> > better.
> >
> > Just answer one question, if you can. If it's really geothermal, why
> > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real
> > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees?

>
>
> (4)

> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and
> > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending
> > > on how deep they go.
> > >
> > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it
> > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat.

> >
>
> (5)
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>

> >
> > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't
> > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal
> > energy. All he can do is attack.


Do you know that this previous post doesn't have the effect you've expected? After reading it, you are the one looking ridiculous and insane. Another fail...



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 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.