Re: E = m c^2 and Riccati

Dear Newsgroup:

NEW EXACT MATH is not like the paper of FLT of A. Wiles.

His paper is 250 pages of very abstract proof, which his friends
accepted because of their academic and political interests.

The nature of the research was that initially we knew that there were
no integer solutions for the equation (for integers n >2).

So, what he had done? Nothing.

He has not solved an unsolved equation like quintic, to be able to
show its solutions.

Even there were any errors in his proof, no one could say anything,
since computer examinations provided no solutions in the first place
(no counterexample can be found anyway).

After all, the result not likely affecting science and engineering
basic textbooks.

From the establishment point of view, it was a perfect scenario, A.
Wiles to be promoted, and they made a lot of noise about it around the
world.

I believe that FLT types of research will be dismantled in the future.

But my research is completely different; it will revolutionize the
entire mathematics.

I believe the establishment is scared that the development of such
research could get completely out of their control.

That means their positions and their image of their academic status
may be subject to question. As well as many new leaders might emerge.

In another of my communications with M.I.T. I have noted about
Professor I.M.Singer.

He is the winner of Abel prize in mathematics (I am very suspicious of
the Abel prize he and his colleagues arranged for himself and his
partner).

I have looked at his work, it is highly abstract totally away from
reality of the kind of mathematics, which was practiced by the past
masters, and myself included.

I would not feed those stuff (with highly abstract operator
theories,..) to the students of the future.

I certainly dismantle that kind of fields.

But he is in the position of power and has been employed people who
had to praise him and promote his interest in employment and other
similar activities.

This is a kind of lost math I have been talking about on my notes to
the math community.

I believe it was part of a package that he arranged to his partner
(initially from Cambridge) to get the prize, in order to emphasize
that Einstein’s relativity is correct, and particularly the key issue
of its postulate, i.e. the constancy of the speed of light is valid.

I have to add that, I have raised some suspicions about the validity
of the constancy of the speed of light, but it is up to physicists,
within a free academic domain, to answer such questions.

But certainly I will raise questions relative to the key formula of
the universe (Riccati).

Although the issue here is the nature of games they play in the
academia.

I strongly believe that despite their power, the true science of NEW
EXACT MATH will prevail, without any games to be played for the
intersts of a few over others.

Certainly as a mathematician for centuries to come, I will not be a
partner to such games, only the true science.

Dr.M.Basti
.

Quantcast