Discussion:
Why did all the physicists and mathematicians fail on the force of gravity being y^2+x^2, not just plain x^2
(too old to reply)
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-09 20:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why did all the physicists and mathematicians fail on the force of gravity being y^2+x^2, not just plain x^2
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 23:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: New Math handling the Old Math decayed regular polygon theory-- there
 are actually only one regular polygon in the World-- square-- resolution--
 better definition
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:44:38 +0000
So why did Newton fail to see the math of gravity and then all the very best minds of science after Newton.
Puzzling why Newton, Maxwell, Poincare, Dirac, even Feynman would miss seeing the math.

That the equation of a circle or ellipse involves y^2 + x^2 = K whereas an open figure of parabola is just Y = x^2. Why would no-one from Newton onwards catch that horrific mistake in physics, or math?

Was there something blinding everyone?

I mean, it is a very open and obvious mistake that just x^2 alone is parabola math, not enough for a force to get the Earth around the Sun in one orbit.

AP
Jan
2017-06-09 21:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Why did all the physicists and mathematicians fail on the force of gravity being y^2+x^2, not just plain x^2
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 23:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: New Math handling the Old Math decayed regular polygon theory-- there
 are actually only one regular polygon in the World-- square-- resolution--
 better definition
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:44:38 +0000
So why did Newton fail to see the math of gravity and then all the very best minds of science after Newton.
Puzzling why Newton, Maxwell, Poincare, Dirac, even Feynman would miss seeing the math.
Nobody "missed" anything, you are just confused.

Besides, current theory of gravity is Einstein's general relativity, not
Newton's theory.

--
Jan
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-09 22:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey AP why is your grid so dull?

Please show:
atan(1) + atan(2) + atan(3) = π

Hint: A 2x3 grid is enough!
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Why did all the physicists and mathematicians fail on the force of gravity being y^2+x^2, not just plain x^2
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 23:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: New Math handling the Old Math decayed regular polygon theory-- there
 are actually only one regular polygon in the World-- square-- resolution--
 better definition
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:44:38 +0000
So why did Newton fail to see the math of gravity and then all the very best minds of science after Newton.
Puzzling why Newton, Maxwell, Poincare, Dirac, even Feynman would miss seeing the math.
That the equation of a circle or ellipse involves y^2 + x^2 = K whereas an open figure of parabola is just Y = x^2. Why would no-one from Newton onwards catch that horrific mistake in physics, or math?
Was there something blinding everyone?
I mean, it is a very open and obvious mistake that just x^2 alone is parabola math, not enough for a force to get the Earth around the Sun in one orbit.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-10 00:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:01:21 PM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:

Burse says AP's discovery in FLT worthy of Olympiad

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:27:24 PM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:

Asking questions about Wiles fatal flaws in his fake FLT


Burse says AP's discovery in FLT worthy of Olympiad


Burse claims AP be given the Olympiad for pointing out the mistakes and flaws of Euler's FLT and Wiles's FLT
all math olympiads. Whats wrong?
ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM Found the flaw in Euler's and Wiles FLT
I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 23:20:31 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 06:20:31 +0000

I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument

Digging into this subject, is daunting because it is so remote of mathematics, and so much into detailed weeds-- in the weeds as we would say.

I found the flaw and had to know what is meant by Modular and NonModular. That is key. For the first time in math history, we are pelted by so called proofs of "something is fishy here" and if this fishiness stays around, then we proved Fermat's Last Theorem.

Who is to say "this is fishy, and what is normal and nonfishy". So math is under siege by a new illogical train of thinking.

So, if anyone were to ask Wiles, ask Richard Taylor, ask Ken Ribet, ask Gerd Faltings, ask Nick Katz, ask John Coates, ask John Conway and hundreds of other people who have hyped, hyped, super hyped this fake proof, ask them to provide one short paragraph, no more than two sentences, or one sentence of what specifically is the fishy spot-- could they give an answer? Certainly not, for their offering is not a proof but a cover-up.

There spot of fishy is this::

If a^n +b^n = c^n had a solution, then why a strange pall is over y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n).

Do not say Modularity or NonModularity.

Just simply tell us the contradiction in a short paragraph.

None of them can do that, because the Wiles contrivance is that the 108 page proof is what that short paragraph should be.

The Contradiction is that if true-- if a^n +b^n = c^n had a solution, then why a strange pall is over y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n), then a odd added to a odd sometimes is another odd number.

Wiles has polluted math with a new way of proof-- where you say-- something strange is going on here, and this strangeness is a proof of so and so.

So, where is the Wiles error? It is that of 108 pages, for which Euler already had a Error filled proof for exponent 3.

The Error of Wiles is the same as the error of Euler in his exponent 3 attempt.

MODULARITY is a fancy word for playing around with even and odd. That is what Euler did in his exp3 offering.

Euler's exp3 gap ridden proof is a Modularity proof. And what Wiles did was model his 108 pages on Euler's exp3.

Now Fermat gave a true proof of exp4, because Fermat centered his proof on the fact that triangle area cannot be a perfect square. So Fermat had a home base assurety to fall upon in his proof. But Euler had nothing solid to go back and sleep on. Euler was switching back and forth on a seemingly endless cases of if odd then even and then odd, then even,,,, even odd, odd even, enough to make anyone merry go round dizzy.

So, what is the fatal Flaw of Wiles?

The fatal flaw of Euler's exp3 was the even,even,even case, that he did indeed prove that the case odd, odd, even has no solutions for a^3 +b^3 = c^3. Euler did prove it has no solutions for odd, odd, even. But, Euler totally missed the case where solutions of even,even,even need a proof that they never exist. So Euler totally forgot or was mindless to the fact that he needed to prove even,even,even had no solutions. As you make a table of the numbers in the A^3 set, you see that as you go further out in numbers that 16^3 + 16^3 is almost equal to 20^3, so as you go further and further out in numbers you get numbers ever so much closer for equality.

So why was Euler blind to the fact that he only proved for odd, odd, even? I think he was blind because the thought never crossed his mind that even,even,even could solve FLT. Sometimes in life, you just miss alternate cases. You think you have all the cases in mind.

And here is the link with Wiles, and his fakery. He modeled his offering on Euler's method, of a almost endless and dizzying argument of even versus odd. Modularity is this even, odd back and forth argument.

MODULARITY means modulus arithmetic and the even and odd arguments.

So, in all that claptrap details of a "lift" of a isomorphism of homomorphism, of abelian groups cardinality, of ring theory of commutation, all of that wrestling was no different than Euler wrestling back and forth with even versus odd in his exp3 argument.

The Wiles argument is a even odd wrestling just like Euler only on a more confused stage with all sorts of different areas of mathematics, thrown in, not to elucidate and make clear, but like a crank crackpot, never willing to accept the idea that this is not a mathematics proof but a hornswaggle, a delusion.

And what Wiles eventually says in the end of his offering is the same as what Euler says, only Wiles believes he covered all exponents, whereas Euler on exp3.

Had Wiles modeled after Fermat in exp4, we would have seen a different picture altogether. He would have been grounded to some solid fact of math-- area of triangle cannot yield a perfect square. But no, Wiles goes with Euler on a wishy washy fishing trip of odd even trip.

So, where in the Wiles proof is the fatal flaw, the error of errors, that the entire sand castle caves in? The error is he totally misses that even,even,even can be a solution, and the nonmodular is seen only as a contradiction of two odds adding up to be another odd.

In Euler the fatal flaw is in the very beginning, where he "assumes odd, odd, even,,, are the only possible solutions,,, totally ignoring the possibility of even, even, even."

Where does Wiles make that error, because Wiles modeled Euler? He makes it at the beginning also, in that he perceives a contradiction will occur to odd, odd, even. Totally unaware that he needs to show even,even even can be a solution unless proven not to ever be a solution.

If a^n +b^n = c^n then y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n) contradicts the fact that add two odd is always an even.

That was the NonModular weirdness, strangeness, the fishiness.

That is why Wiles had to ascend into the lofty heights of using bits and pieces of everything in mathematics, because, he had no grounding as Fermat had grounding.

And where Euler could do his proof in 2 pages, Wiles had to bury his proof nonsense in 108 pages.

The flaw of Wiles's offering, like the flaw of Euler, is that they both, missed the fact that they had to prove no solutions to even,even,even, they had odd,odd,even covered, but they had no proof because they neglected even,even,even.

So the entire 108 pages of Wiles is just a silly argument in cloud 9, and where Euler was ever so much better in his flawed argument, taking up just 2 pages.

AP
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-10 08:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Still no answer? Check this proof without words:

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/272250/4414

You also get exactly in the grid: sqrt(2), sqrt(5), sqrt(10)

No fluctuation, and also no flatulation.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Burse says AP's discovery in FLT worthy of Olympiad
Asking questions about Wiles fatal flaws in his fake FLT
Burse says AP's discovery in FLT worthy of Olympiad
Burse claims AP be given the Olympiad for pointing out the mistakes and flaws of Euler's FLT and Wiles's FLT
all math olympiads. Whats wrong?
ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM Found the flaw in Euler's and Wiles FLT
I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 23:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 06:20:31 +0000
I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument
Digging into this subject, is daunting because it is so remote of mathematics, and so much into detailed weeds-- in the weeds as we would say.
I found the flaw and had to know what is meant by Modular and NonModular. That is key. For the first time in math history, we are pelted by so called proofs of "something is fishy here" and if this fishiness stays around, then we proved Fermat's Last Theorem.
Who is to say "this is fishy, and what is normal and nonfishy". So math is under siege by a new illogical train of thinking.
So, if anyone were to ask Wiles, ask Richard Taylor, ask Ken Ribet, ask Gerd Faltings, ask Nick Katz, ask John Coates, ask John Conway and hundreds of other people who have hyped, hyped, super hyped this fake proof, ask them to provide one short paragraph, no more than two sentences, or one sentence of what specifically is the fishy spot-- could they give an answer? Certainly not, for their offering is not a proof but a cover-up.
If a^n +b^n = c^n had a solution, then why a strange pall is over y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n).
Do not say Modularity or NonModularity.
Just simply tell us the contradiction in a short paragraph.
None of them can do that, because the Wiles contrivance is that the 108 page proof is what that short paragraph should be.
The Contradiction is that if true-- if a^n +b^n = c^n had a solution, then why a strange pall is over y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n), then a odd added to a odd sometimes is another odd number.
Wiles has polluted math with a new way of proof-- where you say-- something strange is going on here, and this strangeness is a proof of so and so.
So, where is the Wiles error? It is that of 108 pages, for which Euler already had a Error filled proof for exponent 3.
The Error of Wiles is the same as the error of Euler in his exponent 3 attempt.
MODULARITY is a fancy word for playing around with even and odd. That is what Euler did in his exp3 offering.
Euler's exp3 gap ridden proof is a Modularity proof. And what Wiles did was model his 108 pages on Euler's exp3.
Now Fermat gave a true proof of exp4, because Fermat centered his proof on the fact that triangle area cannot be a perfect square. So Fermat had a home base assurety to fall upon in his proof. But Euler had nothing solid to go back and sleep on. Euler was switching back and forth on a seemingly endless cases of if odd then even and then odd, then even,,,, even odd, odd even, enough to make anyone merry go round dizzy.
So, what is the fatal Flaw of Wiles?
The fatal flaw of Euler's exp3 was the even,even,even case, that he did indeed prove that the case odd, odd, even has no solutions for a^3 +b^3 = c^3. Euler did prove it has no solutions for odd, odd, even. But, Euler totally missed the case where solutions of even,even,even need a proof that they never exist. So Euler totally forgot or was mindless to the fact that he needed to prove even,even,even had no solutions. As you make a table of the numbers in the A^3 set, you see that as you go further out in numbers that 16^3 + 16^3 is almost equal to 20^3, so as you go further and further out in numbers you get numbers ever so much closer for equality.
So why was Euler blind to the fact that he only proved for odd, odd, even? I think he was blind because the thought never crossed his mind that even,even,even could solve FLT. Sometimes in life, you just miss alternate cases. You think you have all the cases in mind.
And here is the link with Wiles, and his fakery. He modeled his offering on Euler's method, of a almost endless and dizzying argument of even versus odd. Modularity is this even, odd back and forth argument.
MODULARITY means modulus arithmetic and the even and odd arguments.
So, in all that claptrap details of a "lift" of a isomorphism of homomorphism, of abelian groups cardinality, of ring theory of commutation, all of that wrestling was no different than Euler wrestling back and forth with even versus odd in his exp3 argument.
The Wiles argument is a even odd wrestling just like Euler only on a more confused stage with all sorts of different areas of mathematics, thrown in, not to elucidate and make clear, but like a crank crackpot, never willing to accept the idea that this is not a mathematics proof but a hornswaggle, a delusion.
And what Wiles eventually says in the end of his offering is the same as what Euler says, only Wiles believes he covered all exponents, whereas Euler on exp3.
Had Wiles modeled after Fermat in exp4, we would have seen a different picture altogether. He would have been grounded to some solid fact of math-- area of triangle cannot yield a perfect square. But no, Wiles goes with Euler on a wishy washy fishing trip of odd even trip.
So, where in the Wiles proof is the fatal flaw, the error of errors, that the entire sand castle caves in? The error is he totally misses that even,even,even can be a solution, and the nonmodular is seen only as a contradiction of two odds adding up to be another odd.
In Euler the fatal flaw is in the very beginning, where he "assumes odd, odd, even,,, are the only possible solutions,,, totally ignoring the possibility of even, even, even."
Where does Wiles make that error, because Wiles modeled Euler? He makes it at the beginning also, in that he perceives a contradiction will occur to odd, odd, even. Totally unaware that he needs to show even,even even can be a solution unless proven not to ever be a solution.
If a^n +b^n = c^n then y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n) contradicts the fact that add two odd is always an even.
That was the NonModular weirdness, strangeness, the fishiness.
That is why Wiles had to ascend into the lofty heights of using bits and pieces of everything in mathematics, because, he had no grounding as Fermat had grounding.
And where Euler could do his proof in 2 pages, Wiles had to bury his proof nonsense in 108 pages.
The flaw of Wiles's offering, like the flaw of Euler, is that they both, missed the fact that they had to prove no solutions to even,even,even, they had odd,odd,even covered, but they had no proof because they neglected even,even,even.
So the entire 108 pages of Wiles is just a silly argument in cloud 9, and where Euler was ever so much better in his flawed argument, taking up just 2 pages.
AP
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-10 09:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
But you will never get exactly in the grid:
sqrt(3), sqrt(30), sqrt(300), ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_two_squares_theorem
Post by b***@gmail.com
You also get exactly in the grid: sqrt(2), sqrt(5), sqrt(10)
No fluctuation, and also no flatulation.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Burse says AP's discovery in FLT worthy of Olympiad
Asking questions about Wiles fatal flaws in his fake FLT
Burse says AP's discovery in FLT worthy of Olympiad
Burse claims AP be given the Olympiad for pointing out the mistakes and flaws of Euler's FLT and Wiles's FLT
all math olympiads. Whats wrong?
ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM Found the flaw in Euler's and Wiles FLT
I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 23:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 06:20:31 +0000
I found the flaw of Wiles's FLT, his modularity argument
Digging into this subject, is daunting because it is so remote of mathematics, and so much into detailed weeds-- in the weeds as we would say.
I found the flaw and had to know what is meant by Modular and NonModular. That is key. For the first time in math history, we are pelted by so called proofs of "something is fishy here" and if this fishiness stays around, then we proved Fermat's Last Theorem.
Who is to say "this is fishy, and what is normal and nonfishy". So math is under siege by a new illogical train of thinking.
So, if anyone were to ask Wiles, ask Richard Taylor, ask Ken Ribet, ask Gerd Faltings, ask Nick Katz, ask John Coates, ask John Conway and hundreds of other people who have hyped, hyped, super hyped this fake proof, ask them to provide one short paragraph, no more than two sentences, or one sentence of what specifically is the fishy spot-- could they give an answer? Certainly not, for their offering is not a proof but a cover-up.
If a^n +b^n = c^n had a solution, then why a strange pall is over y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n).
Do not say Modularity or NonModularity.
Just simply tell us the contradiction in a short paragraph.
None of them can do that, because the Wiles contrivance is that the 108 page proof is what that short paragraph should be.
The Contradiction is that if true-- if a^n +b^n = c^n had a solution, then why a strange pall is over y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n), then a odd added to a odd sometimes is another odd number.
Wiles has polluted math with a new way of proof-- where you say-- something strange is going on here, and this strangeness is a proof of so and so.
So, where is the Wiles error? It is that of 108 pages, for which Euler already had a Error filled proof for exponent 3.
The Error of Wiles is the same as the error of Euler in his exponent 3 attempt.
MODULARITY is a fancy word for playing around with even and odd. That is what Euler did in his exp3 offering.
Euler's exp3 gap ridden proof is a Modularity proof. And what Wiles did was model his 108 pages on Euler's exp3.
Now Fermat gave a true proof of exp4, because Fermat centered his proof on the fact that triangle area cannot be a perfect square. So Fermat had a home base assurety to fall upon in his proof. But Euler had nothing solid to go back and sleep on. Euler was switching back and forth on a seemingly endless cases of if odd then even and then odd, then even,,,, even odd, odd even, enough to make anyone merry go round dizzy.
So, what is the fatal Flaw of Wiles?
The fatal flaw of Euler's exp3 was the even,even,even case, that he did indeed prove that the case odd, odd, even has no solutions for a^3 +b^3 = c^3. Euler did prove it has no solutions for odd, odd, even. But, Euler totally missed the case where solutions of even,even,even need a proof that they never exist. So Euler totally forgot or was mindless to the fact that he needed to prove even,even,even had no solutions. As you make a table of the numbers in the A^3 set, you see that as you go further out in numbers that 16^3 + 16^3 is almost equal to 20^3, so as you go further and further out in numbers you get numbers ever so much closer for equality.
So why was Euler blind to the fact that he only proved for odd, odd, even? I think he was blind because the thought never crossed his mind that even,even,even could solve FLT. Sometimes in life, you just miss alternate cases. You think you have all the cases in mind.
And here is the link with Wiles, and his fakery. He modeled his offering on Euler's method, of a almost endless and dizzying argument of even versus odd. Modularity is this even, odd back and forth argument.
MODULARITY means modulus arithmetic and the even and odd arguments.
So, in all that claptrap details of a "lift" of a isomorphism of homomorphism, of abelian groups cardinality, of ring theory of commutation, all of that wrestling was no different than Euler wrestling back and forth with even versus odd in his exp3 argument.
The Wiles argument is a even odd wrestling just like Euler only on a more confused stage with all sorts of different areas of mathematics, thrown in, not to elucidate and make clear, but like a crank crackpot, never willing to accept the idea that this is not a mathematics proof but a hornswaggle, a delusion.
And what Wiles eventually says in the end of his offering is the same as what Euler says, only Wiles believes he covered all exponents, whereas Euler on exp3.
Had Wiles modeled after Fermat in exp4, we would have seen a different picture altogether. He would have been grounded to some solid fact of math-- area of triangle cannot yield a perfect square. But no, Wiles goes with Euler on a wishy washy fishing trip of odd even trip.
So, where in the Wiles proof is the fatal flaw, the error of errors, that the entire sand castle caves in? The error is he totally misses that even,even,even can be a solution, and the nonmodular is seen only as a contradiction of two odds adding up to be another odd.
In Euler the fatal flaw is in the very beginning, where he "assumes odd, odd, even,,, are the only possible solutions,,, totally ignoring the possibility of even, even, even."
Where does Wiles make that error, because Wiles modeled Euler? He makes it at the beginning also, in that he perceives a contradiction will occur to odd, odd, even. Totally unaware that he needs to show even,even even can be a solution unless proven not to ever be a solution.
If a^n +b^n = c^n then y^2 = x(x-a^n)(x+b^n) contradicts the fact that add two odd is always an even.
That was the NonModular weirdness, strangeness, the fishiness.
That is why Wiles had to ascend into the lofty heights of using bits and pieces of everything in mathematics, because, he had no grounding as Fermat had grounding.
And where Euler could do his proof in 2 pages, Wiles had to bury his proof nonsense in 108 pages.
The flaw of Wiles's offering, like the flaw of Euler, is that they both, missed the fact that they had to prove no solutions to even,even,even, they had odd,odd,even covered, but they had no proof because they neglected even,even,even.
So the entire 108 pages of Wiles is just a silly argument in cloud 9, and where Euler was ever so much better in his flawed argument, taking up just 2 pages.
AP
Markus Klyver
2017-06-15 00:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm not even sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Newton's law of gravity doesn't allow for circular orbits?
Loading...