ChronoSapiens: Time Machine and Religion

Category: USA

  • What is real liberal?

    Real liberal is one who has applying violence on the millionth place in his ToDo list.

  • An interesting theological result from Torah

    From my old blog post:

    The main(?) difference between a few tens years ago and now:

    • Tens years ago: Nash: “I am [literally: my time is] infinitely more important than you[rs].
    • Now: Everybody: “I am infinitely more important than you[rs].”

    Compare Torah “Do not ill-treat a stranger or oppress him.”

    But when people not just live in Capitalism but believe in Capitalism (now not Torah but Capitalism is the belief of Jews), then everybody ill-treats each other (What is to ill-treat? To consider on other conditions than somebody other. Now everybody of you except me considers others differently than yourself, that is you ill-treat others.)

    Open Torah and know the consequences of your weird stupid belief that you should live accordingly Capitalism (not just take into account that now it’s Capitalism and you should take into account that you are now it’s Capitalism).

  • About staying on one knee before biggots

    Did ever discrimination of blacks, latinos, Jews, produced a super-stupid (genius that lost contact with social knowledge)?

    Spartak? He isn’t really to be called a super

    But discrimination of biggots has a different effect, it produced:

    • Osam bin Laden
    • Trump
    • Me

    So, staying on one knee before biggots is much more appropriate than staying on one knee before blacks. Blacks are less dangerous. A single black or latino discriminated for being black or latino almost never causes the entire world economy to fall. Discrininated biggots do.

    Super-stupids are a product of cancel culture. Cancelers isolate somebody from the society, if a poor biggot survives, then they get a long time isolated specie entered into their ecosystem and die.

    P.S. I do fit into the definition of biggot.

  • Netta and SEO

    Hi Netta. As far as I understand from telepathy, I don’t much deviate you from the work. So, yet a letter:

    This is my favorite song. I am almost sure you know Russian (or is it a spiritual translator?), the song is in Russian. Comically this great song is song by a group that is also famous for such things as zoofile songs.

    So, I write to tell that I seems to definitely notice that YouTube’s algorithm (note that YouTube is a subsidiary of Google) noticed our relation. But I am not sure if YouTube thinks about what you wrote somewhere, your friends wrote, or your non-friends wrote, or extrapolates what I wrote alone, or is it a spirit, too?

  • How $50 Trillion Were Stolen

    There were stolen about $50 trillion of value.

    First consider a hypothetical situation: What if we somehow lose group theory? Group theory is kinda half of mathematics. More precisely, it is kinda a foundation of kinda like half of modern mathematics. If you get any modern math research (or a serious textbook), the I estimated the probability of having something from group theory in it as about 75%.

    So, if group theory disappeared, we would lose 75% of mathematics. We probably would with a big amount of hard work restore about 5-10% in the lost part. So, if group theory were lost, we would lose 65-75% of math. (The numbers are very imprecise, they are to illustrate the principle, not for an exact calculation.)

    Because the science is based on math, we would lose half of the science.

    The following is the well-agreed list of reasons why group theory is so much important:

    • Group theory is just a few very simple formulas.
    • Group theory nevertheless has many complex consequences.
    • Group theory is related (as a foundation of) with many other things in mathematics.

    In my first year of university study (1998 year) I discovered the following system of axioms (X, Y, I, J, K are sets and is δ is a binary relation):

    • not ∅ δ Y
    • not X δ ∅
    • I∪J δ K ⇔ I δ K ∧ J δ K
    • K δ I∪J ⇔ K δ I ∧ K δ J

    I will show that these four formulas (no formula less, no formula more) together are super-tough.

    Four axioms versus 5 axioms of group theory. Simple formulas. Many complex consequences. (That’s a fact, I have already written hundreds of pages about this.) And it is related with general topology and therefore just like group theory related with most of mathematics.

    So, it is as important as group theory? More likely, it is even more important, because group theory has just one (known) “fundamental” cryptomorphism and this system of axioms has several cryptomorphisms. Every serious expert in math agrees that having multiple cryptomorphisms is a sign of something being important. Also, I repeat, 4 instead of 5 axioms.

    So, this my discovery is apparently (not with 100% but with like 90% confidence) more important than group theory.

    Isaac Newton, who discovered continuous analysis

    I did some other discoveries, several most fundamental like this and many less fundamental. They include, for example, discontinuous analysis. Without it, it’s impossible to fully resolve for example the philosophical question “What is the main reason?”

    The laughable story of this big discovery is that I thought several months when I was a first year student, when I was very near to this result, my mother sent me out of the house to for being a Baptist, and finished the discovery after eating grass on the street for a launch.

    As the result of Russian discriminatory hunger of real Baptists (fake are not), I was forced to leave the university without any degree. There is however a laughable Russian document about me having an education with no degree, and American bastards confirmed me having education with no degree. (So, logically, this is an official US’s government certificate telling “We are a fake science.”)

    So, I got no:

    • right to receive a salary for my work
    • right to get money to be published
    • academic advisor (“advisor” is a scary word from the science of computer security, they call by this word when instead of turning off a circuit there is a text telling “Don’t press this dangerous button, please!”)

    With no advise of advisor (advice is paid) I did a wrong thing: I mis-published my scientific research.

    Here is the detailed story.

    In short:

    • I wrote a too long (400 pages) scientific article, put on it a too generous copyright, and the world publication system choked by this (master)piece.

    So, choked world is dying. Computer scientists call this kind of errors buffer overflow.

    The sheep is mankind, the ring is me 🙂

    So, now the science is like a building being built having a half of foundation or a car going with a missing wheel.

    So, put figuratively: I discovered that our car (science) has a missing wheel, I tried to attach the wheel, but the wheel mount is so much bad that it broke, too.

    It like as if in biology we knew millions of species but cat, cow, and wheat were discovered just recently. Nobody noticed that they need to be included into the classification. An we would say like “well, that plant that usually grows on fields… we need to measure its characteristics again”. “How to get rid of mouses? anyone?”; “The amount of seeds produced by this thing that grows on fields and the amount of nitrates needed to grow that thing that growth on fields are definitely related fields of science, a professor noticed in his book, however we are not sure what is the exact relation between them.”

    Famous mathematicians such as Timothy Gowers and Terrence Tao, despite of being comparably clever to me, need a psychiatrist:

    These hundreds-dollars salaries people seriously thought that the “revolt of mathematicians” that they tried to lead is about them, not about qualified amateurs (the world “amateur” means a human who has not enough money to buy the right to receive a salary for his/her work) who really can’t pay for publication.

    So, Russians stole $50 trillion by religiously discriminating me.

    Americans and other West stole by their national academies accumulating money and crushing their alleged competitors (These bastards think that all the world consists of competitors 🙂 No, me exists despite of their disbelief in my existence.)

    Israelities stole $50 trillions this way (protecting their strategy of theft by a prohibitive tax on good deeds):

    I sent to israkeren@isf.org.il

    Hello,

    It is attached my research (volume-1.pdf is a finished book manuscript,
    volume-3.pdf is more a partial work) in highly abstract pure mathematics.

    It is not full track of my research. I also have more research on
    related topic and research on an unrelated topic (an axiomatization of
    finite and infinite formulas).

    Please not that to the best of my knowledge, I am the only person in the
    History who discovered more than one (I discovered about three,
    dependently on how to count) new fundamental branches of mathematics.
    (Von Neummann discovered several, but they are not as fundamental as mine.)

    In exceptional cases, the institution may submit a request to receive
    special permission. Requests should be addressed to israkeren@isf.org.il.

    So, it is this special case:

    I was forced out of a university after 5 years of study without any
    degree or diploma because of extreme hate to my religious and political
    views while long time almost dying of hunger.

    In other words I now have not enough money to purchase the right to
    receive money for work (it’s called “higher education”).

    Please trigger this special case and provide me personal funding. If you
    don’t, see block-science.pdf

    The sneaky (do I need the word “sneaky” before the rest of the world) fascist at the other end decided to turn off his brain by hate and to ignore the information. (Almost no doubt: He did thought: Anti-discrimination laws in Israel? That does not matter: Legal system such as courts discriminates, too.)

    So, “Hear, Israel!” was violated on the sum of $50 trillion. You are not Jews, you are not people, you are now animals, defined as these who cannot hear.

    Everybody of my acquintances (and this includes Timothy Gowers and Terrence Tao) stole $50 trillion by their force to move money in wrong direction.

    For me it means exceedingly more than $50 trillion of value. Only brain damaged people can value money that they can’t eat or put inside.

    My response? I (like Elijah) attack Israel with magic! Can you judge me, death-penalty worth thieves?

    It’s not only money! Math is used not only in economy but in politics, communication, education, etc., and even theology (You don’t do? I do.) You lost God.

    Related Links

  • How modern scientific ethic may block a science

    A copy of this Reddit post:

    In this article I consider a hypothetical situation when a scientist blocks research in a certain area instead of advancing it. Looks like that I found a possible loophole in modern science practices and ethics. Maybe this situation has come real?

    For the example of the situation I will consider the real situation with my research. I can’t concisely enough prove that the situation with me is real (you may ask if my amateur research is a crackpottery and I can’t prove you otherwise except of forcing you to spend days reading many pages with formulas). But this does not matter for the scientific thesis (or rather hypothesis) of this article, because a similar enough situation obviously can happen (if not with me then with somebody other) because clearly the probability densities of the “coordinates” are not extremely low and there are not so many “coordinates”.

    So, in the first year of the university study I discovered a new mathematical axiom that leads to a new big fundamental branch of mathematics. Later I was forced to be withdrawn from the university by religious discrimination (as a Protestant almost dying of hunger in Russia), not receiving any degree.

    I withdrew from the degree obtaining, but not from the research. So after years I produced a hundreds of pages text with a new fundamental branch of mathematics. Now my discoveries include among other a generalization of limit for an arbitrary (even discontinuous) function at every point, so allowing to research discontinuous analysis, and a definition of “space in general” (I exaggerated: in fact, it encompasses just all these kinds spaces that are met in general topology, for example, topological spaces, uniform spaces, and metric spaces, locales, and frames.) and many other related things.

    I did also another, unrelated, discovery: I discovered an algebraic axiomatic system for “formulas” or kinda theory of infinite formulas. Funny enough, mathematicians produced axiomatic theories for almost everything but like the babushka from a joke forgot to search the glasses on her own nose forgot to axiomatize formulas. In my personal opinion, this axiomatic theory is the base for the future electronics, probably.

    Because I had not enough money to buy the right of my work to be paid (it is called “scientific degree”), I had no incentive to publish journal articles and published just one (I’d say of a mediocre scientific value) journal article [1] on a related topic.

    So instead of writing articles I switched to a holistic approach of writing it as a long monograph, not doing the pseudo-scientific “surgery” of cutting this “living” book into parts.

    Being misled by widespread claims that publishing open access would increase adoption of my work, I put Creative Commons on my book. As it turned out it does not apply to amateurs because the book publishers don’t publish open access work unless paid big money for and there is no way for an amateur to obtain funding except as by being unusually successful in running his own business. (I tell it as the world best expert in amateur science. :-).)

    Later I succeeded to publish my monograph [2] (to be precise an old version of my book) with a Russian publisher INFRA-M. They published even despite it is open access.

    When I send my article about generalized limit to a journal, the journals repeatedly “politely” say that it does not conform to their standards. I strongly guess that the real reason is: They realize that they need to obtain a copy from a Russian language site to check if my monograph to which I refer in the article to verify that I really published it and they don’t want to read my book to verify proofs in the article.

    I also tried to publish in arXiv, but:

    • As not being affiliated with an institution, I had no default submission rights and so sought approval (being mostly ignored) from somebody already published for a long time to be allowed to be published.
    • I received approval after all and published my book and several shorter articles at arXiv. Shortly after publication they were removed. I asked the moderation why they were removed and received no explanation. Apparently they choose to train my brain by forcing me to guess their reasoning. Maybe the removal was because I submitted too many articles in a single day (I asked if it was the case, but they choose to ignore an undermensh.), maybe because they assumed that my claims are too grandiose to be likely true.
    • They told that I need to publish in a peer reviewed journal before publishing in arXiv.
    • Later I tried to submit again and it was again removed:
      • “Our moderators request that you limit your submissions to those that have already been published in mainstream conventional journals. Submissions that do not contain a journal reference and/or DOI (that resolves to a journal’s website) will be removed. If a significant number of your articles have been published over a reasonable period of time, we will reconsider this status.”
    • So, I’ve submitted an article published in a mainstream conventional journal with a reference to journal website. [1]
    • They decided that they should apply lying (see the quote from the email above) to mitigate undermenshes and removed this article, too.

    Now scientific ethics comes to play:

    • I would possibly re-publish the book as several articles in journals, but scientific ethics forbids to publish in research journals results already published elsewhere and my book is published by INFRA-M. Moreover, to split it into parts and communicate with journals is much work and would possibly take years (while I also need to earn money). So, it is near to impossible to re-publish my book as journal articles.

    Therefore it is greatly hindered to publish my (accordingly to the considered be it hypothetical or real situation, producing a big scientific revolution) articles in an “ethical” way.

    I also tried to formalize my research in a proof assistant (a computer program that checks correctness of math proofs), among other reasons to publish it in their database of computer-checked proofs, but I found that not every genius is able to use such software in the state of hardness to use it has in this decade (even despite the fact that I was able to make several small new results in the fields of computer-assisted proofs research in the way of trying to rewrite my book in a computer language).

    Funny? I may have blocked science development: I can’t publish on this topic and nobody other can publish on this topic because scientific ethics forbids to publish results discovered by others.

    So, it looks like that a fundamental research topic (not only my research but also everything that would depend on it!) became non-publishable (to be precise non-reviewable) at all. It’s like genetics and cybernetics in Stalin’s USSR, but now the trouble covers the entire Earth.

    Maybe this problem will incidentally resolve (for example, if I earn enough money to save the science to be blocked (for centuries?)), but it looks like the possibility that this problem or a similar problem (e.g. with another amateur researcher) may grow big. Maybe we already have past instances of similar problems of different size of impact on development of science with other researchers (not necessarily not finished education, they may for example just lose the diploma during a flight, or even deliberately block science).

    As a possible solution I propose to create a site for re-publishing open access works (including books) of another publishers for free. Another important direction is helping me (and others) to receive a Bachelor degree in mathematics without spending money.

    Please forgive me for being light-minded, I lightly assumed that the problem would likely “dissolve” by itself. Now you need to solve it if you have a university connection.

    Bibliography

    1: Victor Porton, Filters on Posets and Generalizations, 2012

    2: Victor Porton, Algebraic General Topology. Volume 1, 2019

  • If the development of science happens to be blocked, what a politician should vote for?

    This is a copy of this page, for the case if bad people will delete it.

    By porton,
    June 1 in Other Sciences

    porton

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members

    Posted June 1

    An amateur discovered a theory that in a significant relevant sense is more general than group theory.

    The amateur wrote a very long scientific article (~400 pages), put Creative Commons on it and then mis-published it (this time instead of publishing in a predatory journal, it was published in a Russian scientific site with no English UI to purchase).

    So, the long article has very few downloads.

    Nobody does research on this topic, because scientific priority tradition forbids publishing on others’ research topics.

    To made things worse, it was also discovered discontinuous analysis that relies on this fundamental theory.

    So the world almost fully lost both this foundational axiomatic theory and discontinuous analysis. This essentially means no future science.

    If you were a politician with power to decide, what law would you set?

    • Canceling intellectual property laws seems not to help in this particular case: The long article is open access.
    • The main issue seems to be in it being amateurish. So, it looks like that the solution would be to remove the concept of being an amateur. It is equal to removing the concept of scientific degrees. So, should we ban the words like PhD? But somebody would invent another word, so I see no reason that banning word PhD would solve this problem.
    • Your proposals?

    Phi for All

    • Chief Executive Offworlder
    • Phi for All
    • Moderators

    Posted June 1 !

    Moderator Note

    Either provide details that can be analyzed or this thread will be closed. As it is, this looks like some crackpot lost his mind over the rejection of his misinformed ideas and is now whining big time. There’s NOTHING to discuss in this thread’s current form. Do better!   2

    porton

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members
    • Author

    Posted June 1  On 6/2/2021 at 1:11 AM, Phi for All said: !

    Moderator Note

    Either provide details that can be analyzed or this thread will be closed. As it is, this looks like some crackpot lost his mind over the rejection of his misinformed ideas and is now whining big time. There’s NOTHING to discuss in this thread’s current form. Do better!

    Thank you for your reply, I am doing your request that is I am providing details:

    Here is that my now >400 pages math article:

    https://math.portonvictor.org/binaries/volume-1.pdf

    (The article does not contain some of my newest discoveries that I decided to keep to myself because the extrapolation of what I said in the original post witnesses that publishing it further could make things worse.)

    The thing that is (in a sense) more general than group theory is my definition of “funcoid” using small delta (see the above text). It is more general because it does not use functions (a second class object in ZF) but only sets and relations (first class objects in ZF). However, TBH, my definition has 4 axioms rather than 2 axioms of group theory.

    Also, funcoid can be defined equivalently using one axiom (but with more high-level objects).

    The above text misses my later discoveries: discontinuous analysis and “space in general” (well, not quite in general, but in general topology). (I was afraid to publish further because of extrapolating this ill-effect to my future publications.)

    Here is the Russian peer-reviewed publication of an older version of the same long article: https://znanium.com/catalog/document?id=347707

    Another relevant fact is that I was essentially banned from arXiv after their moderators lying to me. (That is probably a result of them being uncareful.) The most relevant aspect of that ban is that they provided no explanation at all of the reason of their effective ban, so I have no idea if they think I am a crackpot or no, etc. Maybe the reason was just that I published too many articles in one day.

    What else do you want to know?

    Oh, one more relevant detail to simplify your validation of the facts:

    Here a famous established expert professor claims (well, implies) that my concepts are mathematically correct:

    https://ncatlab.org/toddtrimble/published/topogeny

    Well, this professor does not value my discovery as a big one – opinions of different scientists on importance of some discovery may be different. I claim that he is very wrong in not considering my discovery as a big one and can give persuading arguments.

    To make your task even easier, I will explain what the above referenced PDF file is:

    It is absolutely usual research article on the topic of fundamental mathematics except of just two things:

    • It is unusually long.
    • It was put online about the end of 20th century, but it would be a typical 18-19 century text except of its length (no idea how scientists “succeed” to miss this research topic.)

    swansont

    • Evil Liar (or so I’m told)
    • swansont
    • Moderators

    Posted June 1  On 6/2/2021 at 1:03 AM, porton said:

    Nobody does research on this topic, because scientific priority tradition forbids publishing on others’ research topics.

    You can’t publish the same thing, but one can build on an idea and reference the paper, which might raise its profile.

    porton

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members
    • Author

    Posted June 1  On 6/2/2021 at 2:15 AM, swansont said:

    On the other hand, one can build on an idea and reference the paper, which might raise its profile.

    Yes, but the trouble is that nobody (except of Todd Trimble that wrote a short comment) and about two prospective PhDs that referred to me without any quotes and any reason to refer except to refer to somebody to increase the count of literature references in their theses, that doesn’t count.

    To simplify your work further, I say:

    To verify that I did a big scientific discovery, it’s enough to read the very beginning of the PDF, because it is enough to know that I did found a new simple axiomatic system. Discovering a new simple and “elegant” axiomatic system is a big discovery in any case: either if it was thoroughly and correctly researched further or not. I claim that my book researches it correctly (small errors are possible, but that does not invalidate the entire stuff in my book) and rather thoroughly, but that’s mostly irrelevant for the sake of this thread discussion.

    By the way, I found also another simple axiomatic system: Oversimplifying my ideas, I found axioms for “finite and infinite formulas”. That’s the joke about an old lady (mathematicians) that saw everything except the glasses (formulas) but lost the glasses themselves sitting on her nose (not discovered axioms about formulas).

    Yet another my discovery is that I am the first who put words “ordered semigroup actions” or “actions of ordered semigroups” (and researched the properties of this three-words phrase), while before me there were only two-words phases “ordered semigroups” and “semigroup actions”. That sounds funny, but putting these three words together is a big discovery (but more is that I found a connection between these three words and general topology).

    You can check this my claim using Google.

    Not to contribute to the discussion but to add some humor:

    • Scientist: What else research topic to think about?
    • Advisor: Think out of the box!
    • Scientist: Which box?
    • Advisor: You have some mathematical object D. Think out of the box D(x), instead apply it to D itself, so write the formula D(D).
    • Scientist: What D would be exactly?
    • Advisor: Think about as many different kinds of formulas as possible!
    • Me: formula(formula).

    More humor:

    • Scientist: We have the definition of uniform space: A filter on a binary Cartesian product + some axioms. To make it more general, we should remove some axioms. We are investigating about last 50 years which axioms to remove.
    • Me: A filter on a binary Cartesian product.

    porton

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members
    • Author

    Posted June 2 (edited)

    Yet humor:

    • Scientists: Consider limit of a function on an arbitrarily chosen (and impossible to be pointed concretely) ultrafilter except of the principal ultrafilter “near” given point. The result depends on this incomprehensible for finite creatures choice.
    • Me: Consider all limits of a function on all (ultra)filters (including the principal ultrafilter) “near” a given point.

    Yet humor:

    • Scientists: The properties of operators on a normed space are similar to properties of topological spaces… Operators are actions of semigroup… This semigroup is ordered.
    • Me: Consider actions of ordered semigroups. That’s a common generalization of topological spaces and operators on a normed space.

    Yet:

    • Scientists: There are several kinds of continuity, defined in different ways, having in common, well, the word “continuity”.
    • Me: All kinds of continuity are foa<=bof for semigroup elements f, a, b and its operation o.

    And:

    • What is science development discontinued by unlimited idiotism?
    • When we lost generalized limit defined for every discontinuous function.

    Yet:

    • Student: Defining Lipshitzs derivative is a complex topic.
    • Me: f'(x) = lim_{r->0}(h|->(f(x+rh)-f(x))/r)).

    Yet:

    • Hawkings got Nobel prize for finding the only explanation of black holes preserving information.
    • Me: Another explanation (yet not mathematically checked, because I work alone).

    Oh, a new thought I never had:

    LHC scientific measurement system produces small black holes that accordingly Hawkings’s theory quickly burst and therefore don’t devour the Earth.

    If not Hawkings’s but my explantion happens to be right… They most probably don’t burst at all… and devour the Earth. Edited June 2 by porton

    porton

    • Quark
    • porton
    • Members
    • Author

    Posted June 2

    So, I’ve posted to a physics forum, but it is still pending moderation.

    Phi for All

    • Chief Executive Offworlder
    • Phi for All
    • Moderators

    Posted June 2  On 6/2/2021 at 2:18 AM, porton said:

    Not to contribute to the discussion !

    Moderator Note

    Very little you’ve said aids any kind of meaningful discussion. You really need to focus on one little thing at a time, and be as clear as possible. THIS IS NOT A BLOG! We’re not going to discuss why your book didn’t get published. This is a science discussion forum.

    Thread closed.   1

    Guest

    This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • What was the REAL mental illness of John Nash? (It seems to be NOT schizophrenia!)

    I am watching (the Russian version (apparently mistranslated, because only Russian illeterate people could translate apparent words of Baptist Nash “to have sex” apparently really meant to mean “marry” as “переспать” that is “to have sex just once”) of, because of lack of an English version in my videoteka. It’s now on pause.

    Well, Nash was hospitalized by psychiatrists after having absolutely valid and reasonable in his situation (though wrong) supposition that Russians hunt for him. Then they gave him Aminazin and after this Nash had a hallutionation of his real friend being irreally present in the room.

    So, the true story seems to be: Nash was healthy, then they gave him Aminazin and he became brain-damaged.

    Aminazin is still being widely used. So, it’s a valid scientific hypothesis: If you kill a psychiatrist, you do a good deed. (I don’t recommend you to kill psychiatrists, but instead to investigate this further.)

  • To Netta Engelhardt: Our funny “dramaturgy”

    So, I want to present an purported objective analysis of this funny component (that is related to you) of my funny story. (I have a kind of right for this: I cannot work all the time and need a play sometimes.)

    So, I wrote an article telling that I need a wife and that God seems having told me that she to be the world best physicist. (Aug 27, 2021, 6:44pm)

    I received a email about Netta (Aug 27, 2021, 6:03pm)

    Believe me or not, I wrote the above article before I saw the email.

    My prayer is answered… What next? Is it to be taken as the pattern of tetragrammon or of Baal?

    Funny dramaturgy

    • Two worlds: accepted and unaccepted (not “granted”) scientists. “Revolution” of several kinds.
    • Two worlds: a former Evangelist (who realized that his old religion was severely wrong and that the church is destroyed) and maybe a Jewish girl.
    • Call to return from abroad to Jerusalem.
    • My emerging but perspective business. Her prize money.
    • Love from God.
    • Call like of Abraham, call like of Jacob and Rahel.
    • It is even not know if the prospective bride is married.
    • And most important, a call to a physicist into a trip in a time machine. Call to become firers of stars, etc.

    Appearance

    Photo of Engelhardt with her feet up on her desk glancing sideways at the camera with bookcases lining the wall behind.
    That’s a photo model’s body photo!

    No doubt, the girl that took this photo wanted to be noticed by a man.

    To be honest, the face is somehow less attractive than the figure: The mouth is somehow ugly and the face overall is not the best. And (a little amount of) speckles what I also a little dislike. But the summary “grade” of beauty is rather high.

    Now Netta is more beautiful than on old photos.

    Engelhardt sitting on some stone steps, putting on a pair of black and white dance shoes.
    This photo also calls men to something. Why do you hide your beautiful face?

    The voice of Netta is not extremely attractive but quite OK for me. Or is it the speaker’s voice not the real girl’s voice?

    On my appearance I think that it’s good, except of my ugly teeth that are “objectively” too big (caused severe health problems in the past, however partly because of hunger), well some women said me my teeth are extremely attractive. Your mileage may vary.

    Attempt of Analysis

    • Netta really that girl that the above mentioned prophecy tells about? Can she be the most smart physicist ever? I didn’t study her discoveries but from what I already know about her, it seems quite likely!
    • I sent several letters (copies in this blog) with my physical ideas to Netta. Netta, am I a better physicist than you?
    • Is Netta from a Jewish/Judaic background? People sinned so much that God split for us all like us being drunk and seeing multiple gods. (“Elochim” in plural.) The sad fact is that now we are in paganism. So, Christianity and Judaism are not relevant!
    • Is Netta from an atheistic background? As I told we are now in paganism and atheism doesn’t differ from paganism: both believe in the same thing, aliens. The call is about an alien space odessy. God is the mathematical social (kinda economical) model of that civilization. Matter is irrelevant, only mathematics is relevant. That’s mathematics and the faith is faiths into mathematics. You can start to believe.
    • Does Netta need to make a sharp choice between two worlds? Will that world send her away if she comes to me? Will I send…?
    • Her beauty is not 100%, but did I ever set myself the task to marry the world most beautiful girl? I strongly prefer one most smart. (Well, maybe because there is 10M most beautiful girls and one most smart due to difference of distributions.)
    • Are relatives/”friends” going to keep her in bonds? If they do, I am not going to stop even fully destroying USA in the war against evil spirits who could keep her in any kind of bonds. Freedom! Informal freedom!
    • No doubt, I did feel Netta. I know something about her. I know that in the heart Netta does not seem to be over-conservative. She definitely does not hate me! I request a report to me about her freedom status or will start an attack.
    • I feel that Netta is not strongly opposed to me.
    • I felt that feelings of Netta are somehow (I don’t know the exact physical mechanism, apparently it’s overloading of computing power of ionosphere by the to complex relations.) may cause risks of hurricanes. The trouble was that attempt of thinking about the trouble was causing its worsening, but it seems to become calm now. Please let her move to a safe place. Now! Before the next hurricane.
    • As sex partners (i mean a couple: despite of what scientists say, I can be happily monogamous with just a little force of will not to look much at other women.) we definitely seem adequate for me.
    • Does Netta hate not receiving the real Breakthrough Prize? Isn’t the story about this?… or about love?

    Netta, any explicit sign? Tell about yourself.

    It’s late night. I am going to the bed of my recently rented “free” apartment and to think about her intensively again.

  • Letter to the physicist Netta Engelhardt

    Hello Netta Engelhardt,

    I am the world-best general topology researcher, also I have some research related to logic and computer science.

    If you don’t believe into religion/prophecies skip the next paragraph and please read directly the purely scientific information below.

    I have an important information (Do you believe in prophecies and time travel? I claim I found an important prophecy about 21st century research in both quantum gravity and general topology):

    I need wife

    Another related post:

    https://after-gospel.vporton.name/2021/08/27/war-of-idiots-for-science/

    BTW, what do you think about my physics ideas? (I am not a physicist, I am a researcher in foundations of math.)

    • Our world is a slice (domain restriction) of the wave function of the universe to a “moment” (with suitable definition of this word taking into account that equality of time is relative) of time. There is another world inside the wave function of the universe obtained by equating “points” (of a suitable space, such as the space of 4xR^4 (if we don’t consider extra dimensions of M-theory for simplicity of explanation) of the domain where the first 4 is 4 fields and the second is the number of spacetime dimensions) with entangled particles. I suspect that this “another world” may be referred by some religions as a spiritual realm.
    • If one move back in time through a closed time-like spacetime curve, will he be dissolved because his wave function would be very weak (of insensitivity) compared to the wave functions of the past because he was a witness of many Schrodinger cats? Or will he necessarily go to (true zero energy) vacuum because it’s “undefined” which of the past alternative world he comes to. Will this true vacuum destroy the present by vacuum decay?
    • Here is my magnetic flying engine concept: https://porton.wordpress.com/magnetic-vehicle/ – I do know that an unmoving schema cannot be accelerated by a uniform magnetic field, but mine has moving parts – I tried to calculate its acceleration force two times and one produced a non-zero force and the other zero. I didn’t keep checking my calculations whether the force is non-zero, because I don’t really believe I did it right, but what if? (If it is correct, it is a perfect drive to Mars!)

    You?!