======================================================================= = It is impossible to choose from among the many delights available = = through the Internet. What follows is a sampling of some of the = = remarkable discoveries publicized in this way. Also attached are = = some messages which, inexplicably, seek to make fun of a few of = = the shining luminaries here mentioned. -- djr = ======================================================================= From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math Subject: The fakes of FLT, Godel Incompleteness, Cantor diagonal Date: 1997/12/06 Cantor got away with diagonal so called proof that the set of Finite Integers were of a smaller infinity than the set of Reals. Could Cantor have faked the world out with p-adics diagonal on the Reals? Of course not. If you use the p-adics in a diagonal method they are equinumerous with the Reals. If Cantor had learned that Naturals = Infinite Integers = all-adics the world of mathematics would not now be flooded by his fakeries. With Naturals = Infinite Integers there is only one species of infinity and all infinite sets have one and only one cardinality of infinity. Godel's Incompleteness theorem proof depends on Godel numbers. In order to make his proof work, Godel had to use Finite Integers for Godel numbers. These numbers are Finite Integers. When you have a fake concept such as "finite" for Finite Integers, you can derive fake theorems such as the Godel Incompleteness. FLT is Fermat's Last Theorem, and it is a falsity. Because when you accept that the Naturals are the Infinite Integers, or p-adics and that Finite Integer was a ill-defined concept, then , FLT has solutions in all exponents. FLT is a patently false conjecture. FLT is easy to prove in p-adics as a false conjecture. However, Pierre Fermat never had the p-adics in his day. And all attempts at proving FLT were so difficult not because the problem is a difficult one for anyone who knows p-adics can solve it in an hour. FLT was difficult for 350 years because it was false in the first place and those that tried to prove it were using a fake concept of Finite Integer. Imagine today a Quantum Physicist trying to use Newtonian spinning spheres for electrons. Electrons exist but they are never little spinning Newtonian spheres. P-adics exist, but "finite" in Finite Integers is a illusion, a mirage. What fake concepts did the world of physics have? Good question. In ancient times the concept that the world was held up by a giant turtle or elephants. The flat earth concept was fake. The epicycles that planets had to move in circles only was fake. And recently the Newton fake concepts of absolute space and absolute time. Mathematics is not immune to fake concepts and until recently the concept of Naturals = Finite Integers had no challengers. Then in 1993 I discovered that Naturals = Infinite Integers = all-adics. So, one has to ask is the concept of "finite" meaningful? Can you have a number that is 100% finite with no infinity components? Is the Real number of 2 without the decimal point and the infinite string of zeros to the right is that a "finite Real"? Is the Finite Integer of 94 really the Infinite Integer of ....0000094? No mathematician before me ever saw that the concept of "finite" in Finite Integer is merely a ill-definition. And because of that ill-defining, Wiles of FLT had to hornswaggle with a alleged 100 page proof of FLT. It is not a proof of FLT but a fakery. Godel Incompleteness theorem, how many years has this theorem been around? Yet still not one single case in mathematics does it apply to. For many years it was thought that FLT was a case of Godel incompleteness, but it looks like the Wiles fakery has upset Mr. Godel himself. It is hallmark of a fake math such as Cantor, Godel and Wiles that their fakery does not connect with other math or science. A fakery sits in isolation. Cantor transfinites has not grown since Cantor introduced his stuff. Godel incompleteness has never produced a single undecideable statement. And Wiles method of FLT is stuck with only FLT, for it cannot even speak about the Generalized FLT (Beals prize). Wiles method of FLT is deaf, dumb, and mute about the generalized FLT. Why? Because it is a fakery and fakes can only sit in isolation. These three results of Cantor, Godel and Wiles are all fakeries because they center around the belief that "finite" in Finite Integers has meaning when it does not. Try to define "finite Reals" and then make theorems about "finite Reals" to see how ludicrous and silly was the notion , concept of Finite Integers. ============================================================================== From: hannu.poropudas@ericsson.fi (Hannu Poropudas) Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle Subject: About Matter and Coordinative Color Metrics in Universe Date: 1996/01/23 I repeat below this important article of mine 'Re: more Big Bang' <4e1r9c$4c1@lmfpub.lmf.ericsson.se> which was dated 23 Jan 1996 05:21:48 GMT: In article <4e089g$dt5@norm.uoknor.edu> which is dated 22 Jan 1996 14:51:28 GMT major@rodent.ecn.uoknor.edu (Dan Major) wrote: >In article <4dv922$10j@lmfpub.lmf.ericsson.se>, >Hannu Poropudas wrote: >>In article which is dated 18 Jan 1996 21:43:51 GMT >>major@rodent.ecn.uoknor.edu (Dan Major) wrote: >> >>..deleted part... >> >>>question is: since the universe is "everything", all matter/energy/space >>>- >>>what did the cosmeg ["cosmig egg"] expand into? >> >> >>I think that answer could be as somebody guessed already >>it expanded to this 'wonder land' what we see around us.? >> >>(In other words as I have tried to explain numerous times >>before: mass in all scales is only due expansion(or contraction) >>resistance of the Universe.?) > >Why would there be resistance due to expansion? Perhaps due those color forces (or color metrics) which coordinate Universe.? (Please take a look anonymous www.funet.fi pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas those H-M's drawings and those README-articles where I have tried to explain those drawings. I would also recommend that all material should be stored also in some other anonymous Word Wide Web computer (or anonymous ftp-computer) due that I'am not certain how long that material is allowed to be in that computer. When they clean memories of that computer all material will be lost.) --- Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas. "Good Self Discipline Is Possible To Achieve Only With Wisdom." "I feel sometimes that there are too many 'old wood ducks' in physics who don't want to learn any new matters." ============================================================================== From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math Subject: WHOSE WATCH, WHOSE SCALE THAT IS THE QUESTION ? Date: 13 Feb 1996 21:02:08 GMT att: Jedidiah WHITTEN In article <4fiv4v$kbg@mark.ucdavis.edu>, [Innocent party -- djr] wrote: >So time needs to be measured with mass? Whose scale? > Abian answers: That was the question and for answering it , I introduced (some 3 - 4 years ago) the notion of (1) 1 Abian = the mass of the Cosmos at the Big Bang in my (original) equation giving the relation of the Universal time T and the mass M of the Universe, i.e., in (2) 1/T + 1/ log M = 1 with positive T, M less than 1 Abian and with M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian That was my scale. The difficulty (I admit) is that the reassuring of the ratio of M to 1 at various occasions is the problem. I wish I had a Universal massmeter !!! But then people raised a storm of rejection of (2) on account of dimensionality, and, to subside the storm I reverted to the units of the establishment and modified (2) to: T=(10^18)Log(1-m/Mo) where masses are in grams and T is in seconds. Now you tell me whose grams and whose seconds? I know the partyline: seconds are determoined by atomic clocks (cesium, etc) and grams are related to the Universal Gravitation constant ! But I question: whose atomic clocks whose gravitational constant- and why they are eternal constants and are they carved by a supernatural chisel on the Mount Ararat ! You answer now ? without waving hands! Alexander Abian: Equivalence of Mass and Time Albert Einstein: Equivalence of Mass and Energy -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ IF IT EXISTS IT IS MASS TIME IS MASS. ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T=(10^18)Log(1-m/Mo) SECONDS. ALTERING EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOPPING GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS. ALTERING THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBITING VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH. ============================================================================== From: mcelwaine9@aol.com (McElwaine9) Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Physical FORCE: What It REALLY IS ! Date: 22 Sep 1998 08:12:19 GMT Physical FORCE: What It REALLY IS Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). Yet, they ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and "FICTIONAL FORCE" to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and the CORIOLIS FORCE. The physicists have FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about what a force really IS, from the fact that these so-called "pseudo-forces" result from MOTIONS. According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS, or a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INWARD and OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL, ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-VIBRATIONAL motions. For example, the expansion of the physical Universe is simply an OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION, which is an INHERENT PROPERTY of the Universe and NOT a result of a "big bang", [which means that "Hubble's constant", whatever its correct value, can NOT be used to determine the age of the physical Universe.]. Gravitation is an INWARD SCALAR MOTION that obeys the inverse square law. MOTION is what makes a homogeneous gravitational field "EQUIVALENT" to a uniformly accelerated reference frame, (which is in a certain kind of MOTION). For objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, acceleration drops toward zero, (a = F/m), NOT because "mass increases toward infinity" (mass really STAYS CONSTANT), but because FORCE decreases toward ZERO (because of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS of the near-light speed of the object and the OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION of light at the speed of light). In Larson's Theory, the "strong nuclear force" and the "weak nuclear force" DO NOT EXIST. They are merely AD HOC ASSUMPTIONS, resulting from an ERRONEOUS model of the atom. A WEALTH of information about Physicist Dewey B. Larson's GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical Universe, ("The Reciprocal System of Theory"), can now be found at the web site www.randomc.com/~rs . Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC P.S.: PASS IT ON! ============================================================================== Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: "Near failures" of FLT ?? (Also, additional questions) From: sr600uab@imath10.ucsd.edu (Hollystone S.) Date: 5 Jul 93 06:22:31 GMT In article <1993Jul4.223737.8229@linus.mitre.org> bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes: >The ABC conjecture places limits on how close one can come to equality. >However, the conjecture is non-effective. >-- >Bob Silverman >These are my opinions and not MITRE's. Q: if your opinions is not MITRE's, then whoes? ( read following disregarding the mechanics.) I guess by now, most of us should have figured out what FLT is. FLT = Hollow, the hollow of the man. and it can never be proved to be true, in a sense that the eagers of some individual man can never be full-filled. This is probably the greatest Satir that one could ever find in the history of Mathematics - use mathematics to elude public and claim FLT is provd which the theorem has not yet been written (either true or false.) It can however be trivially proved to be true by using an old simple arguement some people believed (include me) that the "Empty = Whole". Because empty leaves a wild open space for people to cultivate. T his part was what Wiles had left out that was not revealed in his lectures. " FLT is not yet an theorem. " some people from (cam.ac.uk) had admitted. Then, to claim that somebody had done a proof which was not a theorem yet is not only ethical, also an crime. And people behind FLT had done this before, using post conference that left a big hollow to get people from outside to do the fillings, and use other people's work or their student's results to put into their system, without making an achknowlogment. And this, was the core that I had been complained in Feb. 1992 at Queen Mary Westfield College, Londonh ( go read my poem written in Feb. What did I say in my poem ? ) And now, you people didn't learn a lesson. You people still keeping playing the same tricks, and tricks getting bigger and bigger, grows along with your ambitions. There had been lots of political scandel in this internet: 1. Using propoganda as a mean of communication to elude public. 2. Using propoganda to against freedom of speeh. 3. Using propoganda to elude those who does not know the truth, to against aother to protect your own interest. 4. Sending out psychiatrist while somebody whom are not ill! 5. Lot more, I can talk about you, QMW. 80% of the original messages is programmed by the same group. By the way, none of your distastful messages will have anyplace to stand in this earth. No body has any rights to judge a person's choice of life and way of believe. Nobody! This is the reason why am here in U.S. - for its freedom, nothing else. I have never dependent on anybody to feed me. It was just the opposite. It was you and the college that I had visited, in London, that had been dependent on students to feed you foods and foods for thoughts. Behind me, I had no association with anyone, other than academic work. Nobody had programmed me either. Nobody is capable actually. I am only waiting to see what's more that you are wishing to play ? So Bob Silverman is one of the wavelet in that interest group. There are more. John MaKay, whom the first made the proposal about the Fields Medal is also one the group. I don't against anyone who does mathematical work. But, you people, from QMW, uses teaching, or conference, as a mean to take advantages feom people outside, and ill-use mathematics to elude public. I didn't tell you to talk about my work, or to circulate my work around. My project was my own. It was nobody's business. I could choose to discuss my work to whoever I like, and it was nobody else's business to get involved with my work. Some of you were playing trick to get to know about my work, somebody, Leedham-Green, who I think he should go work at the antique shop instead. And he really knew the art of communications. This is how he ask questions. When he saw I was discussing my work with other people, he would say :" This looks very hard, look all this, looks very hard.." Then get other people to talk about their work. I simply never undrstood why he had been so intereted about my work all these time. Now I do. "FLT" is the proof. The way Leedham-Green at QMW, runing "mathematical factory" is more like people running an antique shop. When somebody has something interesting. He will try to get it by any means without asking. Leedham-Green, had kept silence for everything that I had been showing to him, and get his helppers to expand and put them into his systems, now Fermat. How long have you been working on that Fermat? Would you like to share? What's idea behind that Fermat? Why would professors at U.C. Berkely be interested about inverse Galois Problem in last Oct.? Not earlier ? Why is that the every words that I had been sent on the emails had been carfully examed for its market values and appeared on the News? Even in this netwrok, every topics that had been discussed in this sci.math group recently, was from my paper, topics as following. 1. Shannon's information theorem 2. Definitions, values.. 3. That stupid to prove PI = 3, which is also "stolen" from the chart that I had made. 7 is the Pie. is one proof. Pie is not 7, and more. .... And there are more...even photography, even those numbers thay you were using to quota for Wiles' proofs. You people should be more shamed for what you are doing. Gather the whole world to againt one single person. But, you are not going to win. I will get back to you soon. And, mean while, you should perpare at least an announement as what to say to the public about that FLT Farce! Making your apology! You can say whatever to against me if you like. Yet, you can't againt somebody's personal choice of life, can't againt that somebody whom do not believe in money, or anything else other than the truth. Here is a good reference. Perhaps all of you should go read it before we shall discuss anything further. Book by Infeld: "To whom the god love" - life story about Galois. Tell me how Galois is killed. You idiot. All of You. - hollys.s math.ucsd ============================================================================== [Thanks to pete@bignode.southern.co.nz (Pete Moore) for preserving the above!] ============================================================================== From: the_book_crypt@bigfoot.com (Theophilus Book) Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: zero divided by zero Date: 1997/12/03 If you take zero, and place it upon a curve, such that every curve will return upon itself, to infinity; zero and infinity occupy the same position, i.e. there is only one extreme on a circle. The time-space continuum would be better served if it were perceived as the "motion" continuum. Motion requires time and space. motion divided by time equals space. motion divided by space equals time. motion without either, is static position, requiring no time, and no space. zero, you see, and infinity. The coefficient of symetry of motion upon this circle, produces gravity. Gravity is dependent upon three things. motion (which is time and space) and the symetry of chaos. Consider. If you can imagine a gyroscope placed upon the circumference of a circle, at a tangent to the circle; and another placed at the opposite position, in an opposite tangent to the cumference of the circle as the first one; and keep adding these gyroscopes to the circumference, tangentially, till all spaces are taken up. Now generate a coeffeciente of motion, symetrically, and you have static motion. Add a coefficient of chaos to the pot, and you have molecular motion, which is as close as we can come to creating, outside of the actual deed. Any chaotician can relate the coefficients of symetry, ( I hate to bore you with rudimentary stuff) to the circle. and its effect upon time and space (motion, if you will) but gravity is ignored by many in the mathematical world, because they simply do not want to apply their minds to the solution of the mix. It is right there under your noses fellows. Grab onto it. [deletia: how much can we take? -- djr] If everyone will just complete the thought which begins, "Draw a line from zero to infinity, on a curve such that it comes back upon irself, (a circle) and zero and infinity will occupy the same position, they will begin to understand gravity, motion, inertia, coefficient of friction, and many other aspects of molecular "being" which fall between the positions of zero and infinity. They occupy the same "position," not "place." and they are not equivalent, nor equal, nor identical; they are symetrical, however, and therein lies their beauty. They are cofunctional. And they are chaotic. Theophilus Book ============================================================================== From: escultur@skyinet.net (E. E. Escultura) Subject: Exact Solutions of Fermat's Equation Date: 07 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: sci.math International Federation of Nonlinear Analysts Florida Tech, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Melbourne, FL 32901-6988, USA Tel.: (407) 674-7412 * E-mail: ie.fit.edu dkermani@winnie.fit.edu Website: http://www.fit/AcadRes/ifna.html 5 August 1998 PRESS RELEASE FILIPINO CAPTURES LAST MATH STRONGHOLD Remember the Pythagorean theorem in high school? It says that given any triangle with sides of lengths x, y, z, where z is the length of the longest side, then if you add the squares of x and y the result is the square of z. We may express this fact as an equation: x^2 + y^2 = z^2. One may easily check that the natural numbers 3, 4, 5 or 5, 12, 13 satisfies this equation. In fact, there are trillions upon trillions of triples of natural numbers that satisfy this equation. If we replace the power 2 by any number n greater than 2 we have this equation: x^n + x^n = z^n, that is, x raised to the power n plus y raised to the power n equals z raised to the power n. In 1637 Pierre de Fermat claimed, unfortunately without proof, that this equation, called Fermat's equation, has no solution in natural numbers x, y, z all different from the number 0. This claim is called Fermat's last theorem (FLT); it is really a conjecture since no proof is known. For 360 years no one succeeded in proving or disputing this claim. This year, Filipino mathematician, Edgar E. Escultura, disputed this claim by showing that there are, in fact, trillions upon trillions of natural numbers x, y, z that satisfy Fermat's equation. The publication of this major discovery in the 29-page paper, Exact Solutions of Fermat's Equation (Definitive Resolution of Fermat's Last Theorem), Nonlinear Studies Vol. 5, No. 8, September, 1998, follows extensive debate on the subject, via Internet, last April to August between Escultura and several mathematicians around the World. The journal was updated on the debate. This unusual process was necessary because no one could referee the paper since the resolution of this problem required reconstruction of our number system, which Escultura did. Moreover, the publication of an earlier claim of solution of the problem by Andrew Wiles of Prrinceton University in the Annals of Mathematics, May 1995, made the paper initially controversial. The paper refutes Wiles' claim and contradicts his result. When Wiles announced his proposed solution of the problem in 1993, Escultura pointed out his main error as lack of knowledge of recent mathematical discoveries, particularly, the uncertainty in the behavior of large numbers and in dealing with infinite mathematical systems such as the natural numbers. Earlier, Escultura captured the last stronghold of physics with his solution of the gravitational n-body problem posed by Marquiz de Laplace at the turn of the 17th Century. The problem says: given several bodies in the Cosmos, with their respective positions, masses and velocities at an initial time T, find their positions and paths at a later time t. His paper, The Solution of the Gravitational n-Body Problem, is published by the journal, Nonlinear Analysis, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 5021 - 5032, Dec. 1997. The paper earned for him international recognition: membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the 25-member Core of Experts which is the leading body of the International Federation of Nonlinear Analysts (IFNA); the Editorial Board of IFNA and the Global Organizing Committee of the Third World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts 2000 (WCNA 2000), 19 26 July 2000, Catania, Italy; and organizer and chair of the international mini- symposium on the topic, The El Ni�o and its Impact: Drought and Turbulence, during the Congress. This paper is remarkable in the fact that it is a critique of both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics which are the pillars of modern science. Both papers are bound to set new directions of mathematical and scientific research in the Twenty First Century. ____________________________________________________________________________ For verification, e-mail editorial office: dkermani@winnie.fit.edu; tel.: (407) 674-7412; fax: (407) 674-7412; webpage:http://www.fit/AcadRes/ifna.html Local contact: escultur@skyinet.net; tel.: (632) 427-9729; fax: (632) 410-0308; webpage: http://www.skyinet.net/users/escultur/index.htm ============================================================================== From: Mark Adkins Subject: Dense Sets In R: A Logical Paradox? Date: 15 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: sci.math If we assume that the rationals are dense in R, then for any arbitrary pair of distinct irrationals p and q, there is some rational n such that pp, since p and q are distinct elements of R. Then there must be some np, since if there were not, there would be some pair p,q such that there was no n between p and q, which would contradict the assumption that the rationals are dense in R. If we assume that the irrationals are also dense in R, then there must be some q such that p Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: If 0.9999... = 1, then what? Date: 1996/02/24 Maybe you will like the following variant which comes from the PAIAS PSEUDO-HILBERT PROBLEM CHALLENGE at http://www.paias.com/pagesmat/problems.htm By the Archimedean property for any positive reals a and b, there exists an n such that na>b; rewrite this as n>b/a, and n is obviously an upper bound on the number of points between 0 and b that are separated by a minimum distance a; it retains this property for all a>0, therefore the reals, which have the Archimedean property, are at most denumerable! [a person with some sense -- djr] wrote: ---- snip ---- >The point is that when you derive a contradiction in mathematics, it >means that one of your assumptions is wrong. In this case your faulty >assumption is the statement that 1/A0 = 0 (standardly). There are >several ways to look at this. Mathematics *does standardly hold that 1/A0=0 (it even occurs in standard texts) if only in the sense of the limit as n-->A0 of 1/n=0. If we restrict ourselves to this we still derive the contradiction that there must exist nondenumerable reals between 0 and 0. The question which you haven't yet asked and need to ask yourself is, since this all derives from standard math, and NOT from any further assumption of mine, "what standard mathematical assumption is 'wrong'?" And actually, you make a common mistake when you say that inconsistency means that one assumption must be "wrong". It is the *system* *of* *assumptions* taken together that is "inconsistent". Strictly there is no "wrongness" of any one axiom/assumption involved at all, except in the total context of all the other axiom/assumptions. Take non-Euclidean geometries as an example. ---- snip ---- >You also derived some contradictions yourself, but you failed to draw >the obvious conclusion. A contradiction always means you have made a >faulty assumption. When you find a contradiction, your work is not yet >done. You must then identify the faulty assumption and eliminate it. Same comment... >The faulty assumption here is that 1/A0 = 0 in the standard reals. >This is not a statement about limits, but a statement of algebraic >equality, and it leads to a contradiction. > >[identity removed to protect the intelligent innocents] Best! Michael Knowles mknowles@paias.com ============================================================================== From: tleko@aol.com (Tleko) Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Is z=x+iy an analytic function? Date: 1996/09/13 Is z=x+iy an analytic function? It is not. It is only if x,y>0 (1st quadrant) or x,y<0 (3rd quadrant), according to the literature. Otherwise it is discontinuous. This has been disputed frequently. Is anybody disputing this now? ============================================================================== From: bp887@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Angel Garcia) Subject: On line Monthl. Comments for Aug-1998. Date: 28 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.anthropology.paleo This one is long. Too long !. I have learned about Astronomy and even the experts in Anthropology.paleo have given their opinions. 7 points are discussed as minor editing from respectve boards as above. 1) About structure of gamma-AND. 2) Refinement of DATA for program in file for july-1998. 3) The Radial velocity of alpha-TRI. 4) A beautiful math-problem derived from interpretations at Cydonia. 5) Have the old martians listened to ESI from gamma-AND ? 6) What people of the paleosciences on Anthropology think about Cydonia. 7) Two announcements regarding Monument FA (='Facies Astronomica'). -- Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at Cydonia and complete Index of new "TETET-97: Creatoris Digitus.." by Prof. Dr. D.G. Lahoz (leader on ETI and Cosmogony) can be studied at URL: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887 *************************** ============================================================================== From: Aleksandr Timofeev Subject: Numbers Theory. Help Needed. Date: 23 Apr 1998 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: sci.math See http://solar.cini.utk.edu/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/ for more information about our work - "Gravity mass - some properties" and http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetary_home.html for information about: NSSDC Resources Mercury | Venus | Earth | Moon | Mars | Asteroids Jupiter | Saturn | Uranus | Neptune | Pluto | Comets ------------------------------------------------------------------ There are a need to working out the probability for a casual coincidence a values of masses of planets for The chain of direct and reverse communications. It is interesting for mathematicians, if they are interested in a numbers theory. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The reliable experimentally received mass values are available for the following planets: Integer Planet Notations Mass | Ratio Experemental number of mass value | value commensur- value | ability | Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE)= 12.995971 ~ 13 Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.001011 ~ 10 Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.994869 ~ 3 Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24 Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.011019 ~ 8 Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39 Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33 Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5 Hense it follows - the chain of discrete commensurabilities between values of planetary masses in Solar system. . 10 I<----------->| I 13 | I<==============>I I | I ? 39 I | I |<--------------------->I 33 |<---------------->I 24 | I | |<------------------>I |<----------------->I | | I ? | | I 5 | | I 8 | | I 3 | | I | | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I | | I 10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I I | | I | | I | | I | | I I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI I I I I I 10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1 ln(mass) - - ----------------------------------------------------------------> The following disignations are used: MSA+MJU <--> 2+1 ; MUR+MNE <--> 4+3 ; MVE+MTE <--> 6+5 ; MME+MMA <--> 8+7 ; MJU <--> 1 ; MSA <--> 2 ; MNE <--> 3 ; MUR <--> 4 ; MTE <--> 5 ; MVE <--> 6 ; MMA <--> 7 ; MME <--> 8 5 10 Direct relations - <====> ; Reverse relations - <-----------> The chain of relations of body couples mass values is of periodic type. It has a mirror reflection for direct and reverse relations. (A strong association with strap filters made of concentrated elements appears. This association is supported by the existence of self-coordination elements at the beginning of a chain). The chain of direct and reverse relations have not the breaks in the symmetry. The chain of direct and reverse relations for values of mass show that there exists mechanisms inside of gravitation field that ones are providing the dynamic maintenance of corresponding correlations for values of mass and which are responsible for stability and stationarity of the Solar system. The chains of relations of body mass values embraces whole Universe (Gravitation chemistry). See http://solar.cini.utk.edu/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/ for more information about our work - "Gravity mass - some properties" This is a part of report "Future of the Science" wrote by P. L. Kapitza (he is disciple of Rutherford) in 1959: �Scientific discoveries of the future. =========================================== Usually it is possible to see, that the people are inclined to consider, that they already know about a nature everything, that it is possible to know. So was always. It is enough to esteem transactionses of the contemporaries of a Newton to see, as then many considered, that with discovery of the classical laws of a mechanics the knowledge of a dead nature is completed. Though it frequently also contradicts our subjective sensation, but we should not henceforth do same an error - to consider, that hereafter new discoveries will not be make. =========================================== Probably, you ask me, what it there will be discoveries. If I could them predict, thereby they would not become unexpected and new. ...� See http://solar.cini.utk.edu/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/ for more information about this work - "Gravity mass - some properties" -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ============================================================================== From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (sarfatti@ix.netcom.com) Subject: Re: Chronalogical Protection Hypothesis Date: 28 Oct 1995 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: sci.math In <814876448.11220@pigsty.demon.co.uk> malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes: >> > >Well, obviously of there were no consciousness free will wouldn't be >an issue. > Free will seems to requite a small scale time travel to the past because of experiments by Libet explained by Penrose. Such time travel, or in this case, really communication by a new kind of signal from the future, violates quantum theory as understood today. -- Plug in and play with Jack Sarfatti, The Dancing Wu Li Web Master. Join other successful businesses, advertise now on http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr ============================================================================== From: "James Harris" Subject: JSH: The philosophy of nothing Date: 17 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics Students of human history quickly come to the conclusion that there is nothing that isn't intimately related to the needs of the group. To say that human beings are social creatures is almost a tautology. What that means is that "truth" is less something abstract than something real, the definition of which varies at the whim of the group...even in mathematics. These variations tend to be more of emphasis than direct contradiction. So much cannot be accomplished when so many things that are uncomfortable are simply ignored. As human beings we live with the "great" questions of life, and the inevitability of death. Some of us actually hope to get some answers before that goodnight. But most are cogs in the wheel. Good cells willing to die for the group having always had all the "answers". In the end, all the glory of the chase belongs to the gamblers. And even they are a cosmic joke. A stray gene here and a stray gene there and you're addicted to the adrenaline. You have to challenge like a young bull because that's just who you are. That's what the testosterone that's taking your hair is telling you to do. That's what the symphony of the neurons makes real. Anything less and it's all gray. I recently discovered that I'm a humanist and a deist. If that means nothing to you then I think you're education is still in its infancy. But, I swear I'd be good if you could prove to me that I have an immortal soul. And if you could prove that I don't, I'd kill you. Think of it as the human condition. Logic is only as good as its foundations. And if you think logic has real foundation then again you're education is suspect. Think of it all as a Zen koan. And if you can figure it out, then you're in the same boat as me. Oh yeah, there is no such thing as nothing. ============================================================================== From: pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) Subject: Cannibalizing the Calculus... Date: 06 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,bit.listserv.geodesic Based on copious feedback re my: http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/ocn/calculus2.html from well-meaning math heads, I have renamed my little essay on this web page to: Cannibalizing the Calculus: Pirating Primitives for Curriculum Recycling This should lay to rest any lingering doubts re my strategy vis-a-vis the "calc reform" approach (partially overlapping, not entirely distinct). Kirby Curriculum writer Oregon Curriculum Network Silicon Forest --------------------------------------------------------- Kirby T. Urner http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/kirby.html 4D Solutions http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ [PGP OK] --------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== From: [Deleted as a kindness] Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: PLEASE HELP Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 22:14:57 -0400 If I have 3 objects A = 1/2" B= 1/2" C= 7" How would I find cubic inches? If I do A * B * C then you get 1.75" this can't be right, is there an equation or something that I am missing? =============================================================================== = You say you can't stand it anymore? Let's take a step back from the fray... = =============================================================================== From: mathwft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: sci.math CHICKENS Date: 21 Nov 1997 01:52:17 GMT Why DID the chicken cross the road? John Baez: It's just a special case of n-chicken behaviour in the n-category of n-roads with crossings as the morphisms. Ilias Kastanas: Eh, maybe she saw an eggplant over there! However, it's easy to show for delta-1-1 chickens; but the delta-0-n case is open. Chris Thomson: I've run 100,000 chicken-road simulations. Here are the results... Tim Chow: Whether or not we solve this conundrum, it is important to derive as much insight as possible from the problem. Bill Taylor: It couldn't, unless both the chicken and the road were definable. Herman Rubin: It is worthless to look at particular examples of chickens and roads. Much better is to understand the concepts first. Milo Gardiner: The Ahmes papyrus makes it clear that Egyptian chickens knew how to express a road as a sum of unit coops. Paul Budnik: No experiment on chickens has yet been done that preserves a clear spacelike separation between the road sides. I have written to the editor of Physics Review about this. Michael Zeleny: The non-lucubrative nature of ornithilogical peripatetic teleology inhibits an epistemological approach to the contra-transportative affectivity thereof. Matthew Weiner: You lie! Only a retard could imagine a chicken would cross a road! A. Abian: The chicken's energy is time; so in time it must get anywhere. A. Plutonium: The universal chicken plutonium reality shows clearly how stupid Fermat, Wiles, Einstein & Newton were about chickens. The mathematics community is enviously trying its hardest to suppress AP who has totally solved this problem. Integer chickens proceed infinitely to the left, not right, so cannot cross any roads at all, by plutonium symbolic logic. OVUM! ============================================================================= = From rec.humor.best_of_usenet: (sorry -- references lost). = ============================================================================= abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes: Hey, look, guys! It's Alexander's Rag Time Band! > att: Richard PIERCE et al I have a feeling this is going to be painful. He's back! And he's _pissed_! _This_ time, it's PERSONAL! > Mr. Pierce I see the reports of your death have been greatly exaggerated. > I read your litanies and endless supplications and your endless > nagging complaints concerning me and my ideas. And I have to admit that I've given up and will now turn to a life of raising pigs in Iowa > You are constantly imposing your standards of what is right and what is > wrong scientifically, Stop trying to confuse me with _facts_! > You are constantly imposing your standards what is reality and what is > not reality, I'm gonna tell my mommy on you! You big...big....PARTY POOPER! > You are constantly imposing your ideas on me by telling me what I > must do to satisfy the scientific world, what procedures I should follow > to make people accept my theories, Which procedures is he referring to? Oh, you know, the usual: Don't foam at the mouth when you talk, don't rant and rave like a lunatic, don't talk to yourself in the john... > You are constantly telling me to give evidence, > > You are constantly telling me to give proofs, Yeah! What do you think this is? Science?! Those looney scientists! Always wanting_proof_! > You are constantly nagging and nagging and nagging that my ideas > are invalid, ridiculous, etc., etc Nag nag nag nag NAG! > You are constantly lecturing me what science is, and what I should do > and how should I behave, And I'm _not_ going to take it anymore! *sings* "We're not gonna take it! No, we're not gonna take it! We're not gonna take it....anymore!" > Now, let me tell you *sings* "...a little story 'bout a man named Jed. A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed..." > and let me impose upon you my ideas: that you should > stop imposing Yeah! Stop imposing ideas on me so I can impose my ideas on you! It's _my_ turn to impose now! No it isn't, Crow! Now shut up! > your standards of scientific correctness on me and just > stop giving unsolicited advice When _I_ want your advice, I'll _pay_ for it! > and stop moralizing me like a self-appointed > mother superior, Well, then, how would you _like_ to be moralized? I wanna be moralized like he was Tipper Gore! Or Tip O'Neal How about Meldrim Thompson? The governer of New Hampshire? Well, everyone knows that nobody is farther right than Meldrim Thompson. > guardian of scientific methods and righteousness. Yes, it's Method-Man! Guardian of science! Defender of justice! Reveler of Righteousness! > The only realistic conclusion upon reading your mournful complaints, When you complain, it saddens me. No, Tom....it saddens all of us. > your obsessive preoccupation for putting me down is ..that I'm a total looney > THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY ENVIOUS AND JEALOUS OF ME. Whoa! Nice comeback! *Sally Struthers voice* Would you like to be jealous me? Sure! We all would! > You are jealous that it I That it I? Tom, you shouldn't make fun of his speech impediment. > and not you who advanced the most brilliant idea > of the present and the past two or three centuries , i.e, Sliced bread? Electric snore surpressors? The Super Soaker 200? > (A) TIME HAS INERTIA and EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS Huh? > You are envious that (A) is catching people's attention Oh, yes....I'd just love to have this kind of attention. Wouldn't you? > and that it was > created by me WITHOUT ANY EXPERIMENTATION AND WITHOUT ANY PROOF Always the sign of an honest scientist. "It's true, because I said it is!" > THAT > WOULD SATISFY AND CONVINCE PEOPLE WITH YOUR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Or a 2-year-old. > Yes, you are envious that I have given no evidence, no experimental > verification no proof no nothing, I wish _I_ could make outrageous claims like this. > and yet people are more and more attracted to (A) and find it FASCINATING. *William Shatner voice* What do you think, Crow? *Leonard Nimoy voice* I find it....fascinating. Recommendations, Crow? Set phasers on "well done" > You are jealous that (A) without satisfying your scientific standards, And without satisfying my passion for chocolate > and without passing your censorship, How do you "pass censorship"? On the freeway. > is being considered and not being rejected by many people. It's not being rejected by many people? Nope. It's being rejected by _tons_ of people. > You are jealous that (A) is going to be the cornerstone of the New > Physical Theories Do not underestimate the power of the letter "A"! > and it was just imagined by me without any evidence! Yes, folks, it's time for another round of "Imaginary Science"! > Just imagined, just IMAGINATION and no proof !!! I detect a running theme, here. Yeah, but running _where_? Running out of control... > Only a person with compulsive envy toward me would spend so much time, Trying to ask me out on a date. > post so many posting in trying to put me down and to denounce and > renounce me. I hereby renounce thee, fowl spirit! Fowl? I was thinking in terms of "birdbrains" at the time. Ahhh... > You are imposing your ideas and your righteousness and I AM IMPOSING > MY IDEAS AND MY RIGHTEOUSNESS, So there! *tphtph* > and, one of my righteousness is that I am > going to impose upon you that: > > I do not have to prove to you or to anyone else anything That doesn't even make sense. What kind of sentence structure is this? > and that you > should accept (A) as the most righteous, most brilliant idea in the > entire scientific world. For without it, we wouldn't be able to spell words like "crazy", "lunatic", or "raving". > Further I impose my idea upon you (as you are > constantly imposing your ideas) With a tinge of garlic and a smattering of lemon juice. > that you should accept that: > > (B) THERE IS EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS, BECAUSE I SAID SO ! *bzzzzzzzt!* Seen it! Hated it! > Well, if you impose your standards and ideas upon me, I am imposing my > standards and my ideas upon you by reiterating that: Whoa...what an incredible sense of deja' vu... > You should accept: > > (C) TIME HAS INERTIA, EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS, REORBTING VENUS Is there a connection between these three? Is there a connection between _any_ of this? Now come on, guys...this sounds really important. I mean, time having inertia and mass...that's a heavy concept. It brings whole new meaning to the phrase "time flies" Like a banana? No, Crow, those are "fruit flies". > without any proof or evidence . You constantly impose your standards, your > righteousness upon me, Now, it is my turn to impose (A),(B) and (C) upon you > and impose that you should accept them without any proof - that is my > imposition of my righteous ideas. You know guys, I just finally realized how redundant this all is. > YOU MAY QUOTE (C) as many times you want. Or you may not. Tune in next week when we'll hear Nurse Piggy say: "Doctor Bob! This patient's time is running out!" "I see the problem, nurse. There's a hole in his watch!" > I love to see it quoted, it > inflates my ego and make me feel secure. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside! It makes me feel like a big man! > I have the same conviction about the righteousness of my ideas that you > have of yours!! And, my proof is "I say so " Hello, I'm with the Department of Redundancy Department. > It takes an analytic open mind Not just _any_ open mind. > to observe that any proof in the last analysis > boils down to "I say so" - proof or no proof ! Actually, I'd say it takes more like rudimentary reading skills. > IMAGINATION IS THE ESSENCE THE REST ARE DETAILS !! Small, _insignificant_ details. Like facts. And E$$ENTIAL capitalization. I've had enough of this, guys...let's get out of here. 1 ..... 2 ..... 3 ..... 4 ..... 5 ..... 6 ..... You know, Mike, that was the most pathetic flame I've ever read. Not to mention the way he defended his theories. Very lame! Where do people come up with things like this, Mike? Well, guys, I have to admit that I agree with you. Though the origin of this kind of thinking does in fact have a very distinguished history. Does it really? Please tell us about it, Mike! Yes, Mike. Enlighten us with your infinite wisdom! Uh, right.... Well, it all started back in the days of Chicken Little, when he tried to prove that the sky was, in fact, falling. Chicken Little? That's right, Tom Servo: Chicken Little. You see, he was ridiculed for his ideas, too, but he stood firm behind his belief that the end was near. The falling sky was a prophecy...a fore- shadowing of things to come. But was the sky _really_ falling, Mike? Did his vision come true? Well, he never really _proved_ that the sky was falling, but he was right: the end _was_ near. He was hit by a truck. While trying to get to the other side? No...I think you're confusing Chicken Little with the Chicken that Wanted to Cross the Road. Ahhh.... So you see, he didn't have to _prove_ that the sky was falling in order to predict the end. All he had to do was _say_ it was falling, and then it all sorta...fell into place. Any more puns like that, and it _will_ be the end for us. Oh, you're just bitter, Crow. Knock it off, guys. The Doublemint Twins are calling. What do you think, sirs? ============================================================================= = Space does not permit expansion to the fascinating realms of alternative = = physics. Collections of some stellar examples may be found at = = http://www.tanelorn.demon.co.uk/Physics/pots.html = = http://www.physics.wisc.edu:80/~shalizi/hyper-weird/ = = The list of mathematical luminaries is small by comparison, but this is = = perhaps because I have blindly chosen to ignore the progress of = = numerology as if that were not part of mathematics! = ============================================================================= ============================================================================= For further reading, may we recommend a few web links to novel mathematics: A fine compendium is at http://www.crank.net/maths.html http://shaw.iol.ie/~peter/index.html http://www.indirect.com/www/mburns/vectori.html http://members.aol.com/Lambdom/Home/ILRIHomePage.html http://members.aol.com/areoasis/Reviews/pythagoras.html http://www.grapho.net/codes/ http://www.alkyone.com/mak-pi-gr/ http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/activity/t/tep/www/html/number22.html http://www.av1611.org/666.html http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/replicant/29/chapter9.htm http://www.slug.louisville.edu/~dsembr01/rationality-of-pi.html ============================================================================== "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea: massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." (Gene Spafford)