Donny, the Dung spreader:
1) a hyperlink from your "here's the proof" comment upthread was not working, your latest hyperlink works.
2) Donny your "proof" is not a mathematical proof, I did provide a algebraic proof, a famous one infact, but here's a bunch for pythogoras famous mathematical statement on right angled triangles:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml
(there's actually 65 "mathematical geometry proofs" in that link, just scroll down)
Here's a link so you can learn how to write a geometry proof:
http://www.sparknotes.com/math/geometry3/geometricproofs/section1.html
3)
If Mr. Too Stoned is to attack my claim this is the process he should take:
1- Ascertain if or not I have arrived at a method of finding that angle. I have.
2- There might then be an argument, given the degrees in a circle, that I have just randomly hit on some constructs of lines, circles and points that seem to get the same angle. I can counter that with ease, but it is at least an argument.
3- Mr. Too Stoned next step would be to see if it can be proved another way. It was. With radians. I have that work, it was done by another.
Funny, when I claim that you should follow protocols that are universally accepted you claim that the only way I could disprove you is to follow your protocols. This is indistinguishable from the illusionist yelling at the unconvinced audience "Don't look behind the curtain"
But like all illusionists you are huckster, a sham, and that is prima facie and to the deepest roots.
BTW I am presently only claiming that you use of the term "mathmatical proof" wrongly. And I have proven over and over again that you misuse scientific jargon (e.g. DNA, Inorganic chem (crystal formation), math proofs, etc. see the last ten pages of this crappy thread).
4) Whether or not you were
the first to derive the Great Pyramid slope by the simple compass and rule method. I (nor anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of math and science) can tell because you bury the method in a diagramless jumble that is surrounded and filled with metaphysical mumble. I have yet to see a geometry proof that doesn't have at least one diagram. But I will admit, I am not a mathematician by vocation)
As I have asked muliple times in this thread, Why do you obfusticate rather than illuminate?
That's a rhetorical question, because I (and many on this message board) already know your game.
5)
Gee this proof has little symbols. Mr. Donovan’s proof has lines and points. Complete switch of systems. With that stupidity Mr. Too Stoned follows by simple name calling
.
Unlike your voluminous pages of snake oil selling screed, those "little symbols" have significance and can be parsed out by anyone with a basic knowledge of algebra.
Every "name" I've called is accurate, and IMnotsoHO, witty.
But I really enjoy exposing bullshit artists, so please try again