
Posts
211 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Eldad Eshel


18 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:
Lol. Before you get banned, I just want to say I hope you get a scientific education and realize what science is in reality. If you knew that, you would be producing these heaps of rubbish. You are embarrassing yourself, really. Learn the scientific method and learn mathematics; only then can you think about talking.
Bullshit. You know nothing about real life. All you know is 1+1. Maybe not even that.
2 
25 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:
You first.
Just wait my friend. Just wait.
17 minutes ago, Roamer said:I live in the EU, in 2012 we got a nobel for not bashing each other's heads in, does that count ?
sure
0 
stfu idiots.
6 
This guy is harassing me, please ban him.
0 
Ladies and Gentlemen I have unraveled string theorie !
The supposed "thring" is actually a circle.
It is a circle on which reside the many supposed "parallel" universes.
The universes sit on this circle or, Ring.
They are not parallel AT ALL.
This ring used to look like a messed up string, because of all the mess in the universes.
Now it has finally gone back to it's original ring form.
The many universes sit on this ring.
Our universe sits on the most top of the ring. The Gem of the Ring.

The ridiculous notion that the string is started from a particle is absord.
Copyright
Eldad Eshel
All rights reserved.
2 
My opologies oh good sir, I have forgotten a few basic facts.
Lets redo.
Ladies and Gentlemen, good day, I have unraveled the pi mystery.
We all know what pi is, the length of a circle.
M = length of the circle
K = 2*Radius= Diameter
M
 = pi = 3.14159 + the rest
K
Lets say R = 1
M = 3 + 0.14159 + the rest
If it were M = 3 It would make an even sided triangle.
M = 3 + 0.14159 + the rest
"the rest" concides into a SINGLE dot.
So we have M = 3 + 0.1 + 0.04159
If we fold out the circle and straighten it into a straight line we get >
 +  +  + 
The total of which it comes means that the length of a circle is just a bit more than the total length of a 3 evenly sided triangle.
Copyright
Eldad Eshel
All rights reserved.
Manticore: "The rest is complete garbage"
You dare insult my work ? Calling it garbage ? Maybe give out a list of the many nobel prizes you have won. Shame on you. Please give him atleast a warning.
0 
Ladies and Gentlemen, good day, I have unraveled the pie mystery.
We all know what pie is, the length of a circle.
M=length of the circle
K=2*Radius=Diameter
M
 = pie
K
P = 3.145 + the rest
Lets say R = 1
M = 3 + 0.145
If it were M = 3
It would make an even sided triangle.
M = 3 + 0.1 + the rest
"the rest" concides into a SINGLE dot. Of about 0.0456
So we have M = 3 + 0.1 + 0.456
If we fold out the circle and straighten it into a straight line we get >
 +  +  + 
The total of which it comes means that the length of a circle is just a bit more than the total length of a 3 evenly sided triangle.
Copyright
Eldad Eshel
All rights reserved.
0 
I have found the cure for Cancer and Aids. It is one simple text line.
The cure for Cancer and Aids is:
Do not impersonate.
I will now go into some detail.
Impersonation is the most foul act possible. It is when one impersonates another, and causes dispute with another subject. It is the dirtiest of sins, and needs to be completely removed from the universe. It causes a great mess that leads to many negative results, the most harsh of these being cancer and aids. Impersonation can be done physically, but is most and foremost done telepathically.
To remove cancer, aids and other negativities, one must completely stop to impersonate.
4 
You guys spill out alot of contradictions. Some of you say it always works some of you say it never works, and then all sorts of bs in between. It never works for n>=3. Wiles "proof" is some big bs I assure you.
1 
And they can be different, in which case the "proof" fails.
A "proof" that doesn't always work isn't a proof.
Did you not understand that?
It's like saying that all pairs of numbers add up to 6 because 2 + 4 is 6.
And when someone says but 5 and 5 make 10
you say "But they can be 2 and 4 and so my proof stands".
It's meaningless.
Also, please give us an explanation of Wiles' proof so that you can show you are in a position to criticise it.
This equation works for a few x,y,z when n=1,2. For n>=3 it simply does not work at all.
Trying to prove it ALWAYS works is just ridiculous.
One false answer, like x=2 y=3 z=4 n=3, debunks the entire case of both fermat and wile.
0 
This bit
"x^n + y^n = z^n
x = yx = z"
is nonsense
x is not the same as y and x is not the same as z.
In the case for n=2 (where it does work) the bet known example is 3^2 +4^2 =5^2
x=3 y=4 and z=5 (and n =2)
All the 4 numbers can be different.
They CAN be the same.
And then my proof stands firm.
0 
x^n + y^n = z^n
x = y
x = z
x =/ 0
x^n + x^n =/ x^n
2x^n =/ x^n
2 =/ 1
For this case an infinite number of numbers will not work
0 
Big fucking deal.Really ?
So YOUR proof is to actually multiply it out for each number from 3 to infinity ?
Indulge us, then.
Show the proof that it doesn't work for n=99999999999999999999.
We'll wait several months.
Then you can start on n+1 !
My claims are proovable with a serious computer, for any number.
5 
That's just a special case and not the same as a proof of the general equation.As was pointed out, there is no evidence Fermat had a proof; he simply claimed to have had one. If he did, it would most certainly be different than Wile's proof which runs some 200 pages and uses mathematics not extant in Fermat's time.
Special case ? Are we talking mathematics or rubjub ?
There are an infinite number of these "Special case"s.
It just doesn't work AT ALL, NEVER, EVER, EVER for n > 2.
Try it and see.
This Wile's "proof" is also some bullshit.
Fermat came up with one proof for n=2 and thought he prooved it for the entire equation.
This is the so called "Lost solution". He went out and talked about it, and created a big excitement.
He later found out it doesn't work always like he thought and destroyed the so called "Lost solution".
That is all there is to this story.
It is one big Bullshit.
This is more a psychological story than a mathematical one.
Something is destroyed, erased, lost or forgotten, and it's value and merit get bloated to the heavens.
The interesting part of this equation from the mathematical point of view is how it never ever works for n>2.
Not that it does.
4 
How do you know?
It's unlikely, but possible that Fermat came up with some brilliant solution.
n = 3
x = 2
y = 3
z = 4
2^3 + 3^3 =/ 4^3
8 + 27 = 35
8 + 27 =/ 64
End of story.
2 
Fermat's Last Theorem?
Yes, thank you.
x^n + y^n = z^n
This equation only works with certain numbers with n = 1 or 2.
x^n + y^n =/ z^n
For n > 2
That last solution from long ago was simply wrong.
0 
I heard once of an equation that was proved in a simple way and then the solution was lost. This happened some hundreds of years ago, I think. Does anyone know this equation ? I forgot the exact context.
0 
It is not curable by those means. You might argue that it's preventable. But you can't argue that "being straight" necessarily prevents AIDS. I don't know what the stats are these days, but the most you could argue (if supported by the realworld data) is that being straight lowers your likelihood of contracting AIDS.
"Living correctly" doesn't even have a welldefined meaning.
So overall, pretty empty post.
It is CURABLE by these means.
And you yourself seem empty.
"Living correctly" : Eating and drinking in moderation. Avoiding bickery, avoiding drugs.
Refraining from bad habits. Refraining from homosexuality, keeping straight.
And refraining from masturbation.
Sex with the opposite sex is something very positive, while done in moderation.
9 

There is a scientist named Gyorgy Egely, he researched the psi wheel phenomena scientifically, and came up with very interesting results. He invented a special psi wheel that is called the "Egely Wheel", that is very sensitive to the telekinetic force. He concluded that the force is not caused by conventional accurances, and that it is a special force not yet known to science. You can type the word "egely" in google and see his website. There is a wikipedia page about him 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Egely
but it is in a language I do not know, if someone could translate it I would be very thankful.
0 
But i've been liaising with the Martians for about a year now with very positive results, under very strict conditions too. They are definitely, i can vouch for it. I already have some videos, but i will make more later.
Are you convinced yet? I have lots of evidence.
Oh really ? Want to show us these videos ? Ram your head against the wall more, see if I care.
1 
Precisely. But your 'proof' is only as valid as mine  what's the difference?
If i am to accept you have proved telekinesis then you must accept me as King of the Martians. Which would be silly. So the question is why don't you think your proof is silly?
Again, what's the difference?
The difference is that I'm experimenting on this for around a year now, with positive results, even under strict conditions. I do have unedited videos without the bowl, which are proof in some way. And as I said I will try to make a video with the bowl.
0 
You have my word i'm the King of the Martians. I will provide proof when i feel like it by putting videos on facebook of my people obeying me on a recent trip to Mars. I am a serious person.
Does this not "prove" Martians exist?
If not, why not?
This is not serious, this is a joke. Where I am serious and not making a joke.
0 
This is my third post on the subject, which I start almost a year ago. I HAVE listened to what you guys were saying, and I have decided to do the testing on the wheel ONLY covered by a glass bowl. It is completely covered this way, and even if I blow on it it will not move. My results are positive, it spins, slightly. Further on I will try to make a video. I am not a fraud, you have my word, and my word means something, at least to me. If you check me on facebook (where I have several pages), you will see I am a serious writer and musician. I have no intention of fraud.
So, does this not "prove" telekinesis ?
0
Ladies and Gentlemen I have unraveled string theorie !
in Physics
Posted
Good kind elderly sir, sir MantiBore.
I do not need to "finish" my education, I am a grown up man with a wife and children.
I work, study, live, have accasional fun, etc.
Stop harassing me, Good sir, sir MantiBore.