Who is for whom?

============.

Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.

Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.

This simple fact is forgotten in the science now.

1.

After war, in Russia there were many thieves' gangs

And I, as a boy, rotated among one of them.

They had their own language, thieves' jargon.

Not anyone could understand them.

Now I read some mathematical articles and they

remind me forgotten thieves' slang.

Are you laughing? Is it ridiculous ?

For me it isn’t ridiculous .

Why?

Because , mathematicians stole the picture

of reality from us . Because they make us

poor and stupid.

Why do you say so?

OK. I will try to prove it and explain my point of view.

=========..

2.

It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,

( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).

Minkowski, trying to understand SRT, used 4D space.

Poor young Einstein , reading Minkowski interpretation,

said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.

" You are right, it is difficult to understand SRT, using 4D space.

But using my 5D space it is possible" - said Kaluza in 1921.

This theory was checked up and recognized insufficient.

" Well, - said another mathematicians, - maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D

spaces will explain it". And they had done it.

But the doubts still stay.

"OK,- they say, - we have only one way to solve this problem,

we must create more complex D spaces " .

And they do it, they use all their power, all their

super intellectuals to solve this problem.

Glory to these mathematicians !!!!

But……….

But there is one nuance. To create new D space, mathematicians

must take a new parameter. It is impossible to

create new D space without a new parameter.

And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily

( it fixed according to his opinion not objective rules ).

The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way :

“ Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four

I can make him wiggle his trunk…”

To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add :

“ with one more parameter the elephant will fly. “

The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.

Where are our brains?

Please, remember, many D spaces were born as a whish

to understand SRT ( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).

But if someone wants to understand, for example,

a bird ( photon / electron) itself and for this he

studies only surroundings will he reach success ?

If I am a king , I will publish a law:

every mathematician who takes part in the creation

of 4D space and higher - to award with a medal

" To the winner of a common sense ".

Why?

Because they have won us, using absurd ideas

of Minkowski and Kaluza.

=======..

P.S.

I asked some mathematician :

There are many different D spaces in the math/ physicist’s works.

Are there limits of these D spaces?

Maybe is 123 D space the last and final space ?

He answered:

I think there are as many opinions on this as there

are people giving thought to the issue.

My own opinion is that since the more immediately

obvious 123D option (either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic)

did not allow, despite all efforts, reconciling the various

theories, then there is need to try something else.

Maybe has this time

“then there is need to try something else” come ?

3.

And what is mathematical opinion about photon itself ?

Here is one example how mathematician tries

to solve the problem.

Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created "toro model "

of light quanta. According to this model the light quanta is a

constant volume ring ( like bublik) . The speed of it

is different and this fact gives possibility to understand

all light natural phenomenones, overcome through all

contradictions in the physics and to offer a new technology.

So it is written in the book.

/ Book “The secrets of Universe” 1998.

V.D. Demin. Page 377./

Short explanation is given on 4 pages.

Glory to this scientist .!!!!

Glory to this professor !!!!

But….

But I have only one question .

Can this "toro volume ring model "

( like bublik) have volume in Vacuum ?

The answer is “ NO “

According to J. Charles law ( 1787),

when the temperature falls down on 1 degree

the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the

temperature reaches -273 degrees the volume

disappears and particles become "flat figures ".

The " Charles law" was confirmed by other physicists:

Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein .

So, according to Charles law

the "toro volume ring model " is only

mathematic illusion .

There are many different models of photon.

To choose the correct one we needs to ask

a question: “ Which geometrical form can

photon have in vacuum ? “

4.

Some scientists say:

" The darkest subject in the science is light quanta."

Maybe now some my readers will understand

better the way on which we must go.

5.

Now mathematics goes ahead science and physics follows it.

Mathematicians carry the posters " Forward to abstract”,

" Forward to absurd” and we all follow them.

We go bravely on dinosaur’s path.

=============.

My thanks to gentlemen : Jim Whitescarver ,

Andre Michaud, Richard Gauthier, “ R.A.” and “ Si “

for helping me to understand the alphabet of mathematical slang.

=============.

http://www.socratus.com