New Energy Formula

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Math - Symbolic Forum » New Energy Formula

Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:44 pm

Dear newsgroup:

Since the Google group does not have attachments, please see the math
forum :

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1726525&tstart=0

As you have noticed from my diagram (Math-Chart), the Riccati equation
is the central source of mathematics.

Namely all other major mathematical structures such as polynomials,
linear and non-linear differential equations, integrals and thus their
numerical applications are rooted in Riccati differential equations.

This is my over a quarter century extensive research experience on
this topic.

If you want to challenge the Math-chart and thus the above claim, I
believe you need to engage in at least 5 years of international
research on these issues on my new mathematics, to be able to
understand its complex domain.

Simply it is a universe of its own right.

Since mainly energy formulas rooted say in partial differential
equations, and for solving those we need to have at least in part
Riccati equations (with all branches in the chart).

Thus confidently I can declare that the energy formula of the world is
linked with the Riccati differential equation as seen in this PDF
diagram.

This is purely mathematical formula (If we assume the equation of the
heat is correct, i.e.PDE).

The formula E=m c^2 has a physics postulate of constancy of the speed
of the light (If assumed it is correct) which is different one from
the mathematics version (as attached in the second PDF file).

This will give you more imagination of the new world of math.

Sincerely

Dr.Mehran Basti

Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:31 pm

Dear newsgroup:

I have now posted my article on " My New Energy formula" on several
newsgroups in sci math (such as sci math symbolic and sci math) and
also in physics newsgroups such as (sci physics and sci physics
relativity).

These are unmoderated sites.

I have also sent a copy to a moderated group" sci physics research".

This is the answer I got from professor Igor Khavkine,
sci.physics.research co-moderator:

"Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.
"

Well, how the moderator knows the statement is overly speculative?

The whole Idea is based on a new science, which I have claimed to be
as strong as Newton's calculus or Descartes analytic geometry.

This is the research I have done for over 25 years.

If you want to challenge it, you could initially get to know its
science and then initiate further research on it and debate the issue
within scientific domain (and also help me to write my lecture notes
and present seminars on these issues).

But blindly even ignoring it for others to see it, is a naïve
decision.

The issue of new energy formula as a Riccati equation, I believe is
more realistic mathematical perspective.

When I see the picture of the sun, I imagine there is a sole
mathematical formula presenting and governing its activities.

One may say that you may have experienced the constancy of the speed
of the light around may be up to the planet of Mars.

But who knows it is correct for environments many light years away?

Is this not speculative?

I am not here to approve or reject this idea, certainly I am not
physicist.

Bertrand Russell in his ABC of relativity, I believe mentioned (read
27 years ago, I do not have a copy now) that the theory is logically
true (assuming the universal truth of constancy of the speed of light)
but I believe it had doubts in its philosophical status (Please check
his ABC of relativity).

I personally believe the issue of Albert Einstein also has some
political and social dimensions associated with all of his science
and
all scientists working on the subject (and I am not going to get
involved in complexity of the arguments surrounding it here).

Any way, the new science is here and its centre is Riccati
differential equation, this is my claim (and I am so proud of this
discovery).

I hope the math and physics community try to understand this new
science, instead of a power struggle within the societies.

Sincerely

Dr.Mehran Basti

Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:31 pm

Dear Newsgroup:

Certainly my aim here is not to reject or echo E = m c^2 formula.

The only claim is the Math-chart diagram demonstrating that the
Riccati differential equation

dx/dt+x^2=g(t)

represents the sole center of major mathematical structures.

In order to understand it, you need to know how I calculate for
example polynomials on Riccati differential equations.

The Riccati formula is a mathematical version of Energy formula
governing the universe.

This also means from top to bottom of the mathematical physics
formulas should be recalculated within the new science.

Please read my research statements.

Sincerely

Dr.Mehran Basti

Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:34 am

Basti...@aol.com wrote:

also means from top to bottom of the mathematical physics

Quote:

formulas should be recalculated within the new science.

Please read my research statements.

Sincerely

Dr.Mehran Basti

Dear newsgroup:

I have to clarify myself here that, what I meant from the above
statment, was the equations like Bessel, Legendre, Hermit, etc (i.e.
classical Ordinary differential equations of physics) will be
recalculated.

Indeed the proper way to solve Bessel differential equations in
infinite series terms is that we place infinite series on its Riccati
version instead of second order linear differential equation (Bessel).

In this way we naturally connect to many issues such as polynomials.

A lot of textbooks are subject to change after this research is taken
off internationally.

But the math community is strangely silent and I have to write my
lecture notes and disseminate it myself (about 2000 pages with
software).

I have to pass their power struggle in math community, and there is no
way I will accept some of their leader's status.

Sincerely

Dr.M.Basti

Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:00 am

Dear newsgroup:

The Math-chart is pretty strong mathematical statement describing the
fountain of mathematical activity of the universe at large.

That is why it is a representative of Energy formula, which
constitutes the existence of the universe (matter, particle, motion
and energy).

This is my over a quarter century research on my new math which I am
sure you will get the same conclusion after reading my lecture notes
(yet to be written) and about 5 years of international research on the
topic (you need to gain experience about this new math universe).

One may obtain some understanding from the inner structure of the
chart through its mathematical dynamics and indeed to it actual
interpretations from physics point of view.

For example we will notice that a class of polynomials represent a
particular type of differential equations (in its Riccati form).

Other classes have different forms.

This is true when we formulate an equation to be used for solving
Riccati equations of say Bessel differential equations.

What I am saying is that for other types of applications such as
Legendre equations we need to formulate different setting.

I do remember when I had submitted a paper to a Journal; I used a
formula to get the solutions of the Bessel differential equations,
whereas the referee thought the formula also could be used for others
(which is not true).

The whole idea above means each class of polynomials has its own
unique differential equations and they are not the same within
different classes. Also true about Riccati.

This also gives me an idea that possibly a group of stars(millions of
them) within a Galaxy, may have one class of polynomial or Riccati
equation associated with them.

I hope somehow I made myself clear that the broad mathematical
characteristic of the major branches in math as a chart and their
inner dynamic as related to Riccati, will reveal some understanding
about the structure of the universe at large (from physics view
point).

I am interested to present seminars on my new Math.

Dr.Mehran Basti

Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:56 am

Basti...@aol.com wrote:

Quote:

Today I have received a form letter from chair of MIT applied math,
rejecting my application for a position there.

My answer to Dr.Toomre was the following:
“
It is sad that M.I.T thinks inside a box”.

He replied my e-mail as follows:

“Dear Dr Basti,

Well, yes, maybe we are guilty of thinking inside a box. But
it is a pretty large box ... and for me as a theoretical astronomer
something like 10^10 light years on the side!

Cheers again, Alar Toomre”

If 15 years ago in 1993 they had initiated developing my new Math, we
would have already many strong fields and new textbooks and software.

But instead they tried to capitalize in no good and highly abstract
proof of Fermat Last Theorem for their own games in the academia.

Well, my new methods are here and my new energy formula is also here,
it will be there for centuries to come.

This is my position.

Dr.Mehran Basti

Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:09 am

Dear Newsgroup:

About 10 years ago a colleague of mine at the university of Manitoba
provided a letter of recommendation.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math.symbolic/browse_thread/thread/740ca636dcce43ff/2421dcd30ee89c0e?lnk=st&q=%232421dcd30ee89c0e

Well, he later said they do not look at his references.

This is the reality of the math community gangsters; I wonder why the
American higher educational system is so mixed up.

Unfortunately the nature of my research is in such a way that, they do
not see their power preserved upon its growth (their phony fields may
be dismantled).

Since 10 years ago my production on this research has also been
tripled, thus the length of my unemployment as well.

Those at MIT, Harvard, etc only view their academic power, and have no
interest for true science.

They have completely forgotten the history (they are so naïve).

I assure you they cannot deceive the public forever. They will be
prosecuted and will be forced to leave their positions or their status
will be restricted.

Think about my New Energy Formula and see how the universe structured
mathematically in a simple Riccati differential equation at its heart.

X’ +X^2 = g (t)

Is it not simple and beautiful?

Try to get to know my new science, and forget power struggles in the
academia, which is poisoning and destroying the American higher
educational system.

Vote for my new math!

Dr.Mehran Basti

Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:57 am

Dear Newsgroup:

On early 1980 I looked at the sky and wished to have my own simple
formula representing mathematical structure of the universe.

Today I have it, My New Energy Formula:

X’+X^2 = g (t)

Is it not simple and beautiful?

Do they accept that I have a new mathematical Energy formula different
than the physics formula of E =m c^2 ?

Do they believe that my new math might be as strong as Newton’s
Calculus?

No doubt, they will get very nervous and highly emotional!

Thus out of control of their academic hiring practice on my
application.

But science speaks the truth, and unfortunately they cannot cover and
ignore it permanently.

Dr.M.Basti

Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:20 pm

Basti...@aol.com wrote:

Quote:

Dear Newsgroup:

Someone in the newsgroup sci. physics commented the following about my
New Energy Formula:

ahahahAHAHAHA... yeah, yeah.. and that took you 28 years?

Quote:

ahahaha... I shall advise my HR-departments in all divisions
to put you, "Dr.", into the category: "Don't call us. We'll call you"
Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha...
ahahahaha... ahahanson

My answer:

Yes, it took me 28 years! Research on this topic is very slow.

Sometimes its takes a year, you get epsilon advancement in this field.

Initially I was working for couple of years to assign a differential
equation to a polynomial and although I had some results, but not
significant.

Only in 1996 i.e. about 16 years after my research on Riccati, I had
noticed to solve polynomials with separable Riccati equations.

Thus eventually I considered generally a method attacking polynomials
with Riccati equations.

Initially in solving Riccati differential equations, we will see that
Riccati equations are included in higher order linear differential
equations of variable type.

This is also true for polynomials.

So around 1997 I began to notice this INVERSE relation, as key
observation including polynomials in Riccati.

As mentioned on my statement of research I first saw papers of
associating polynomials with linear differential equations in 2004
(i.e.1860-61 papers).

I still do not know how they had done it (i.e.1860 paper); I believe
my method is simpler and expandable. Although they had only experiment
their results with quadratic and cubic, nothing more.

What I wanted to say, one wonders why since 140 years WE DID NOT HAVE
PUBLICATIONS on this topic.

The next to the line is my results (No one published and will publish
it).

Yes, it takes years to develop a solid science i.e. the next Newtonâ€™s
Calculus or Energy formula.

The math community does not want to consider this fact.

I have lost my career to create this science, no laughing matter!

Dr.Mehran Basti

filipovic81

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:09 am

Guest

This is a joke, right???

Mehran Basti

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:26 am

Guest

Quote:

This is a joke, right???

Dear Newsgroup:

No joke at all. Not what so ever.

The Riccati equation is the fountain of the mathematical activity as diagram shows.

It means the universe in its heart mathematically communicating with Riccati, (which stands out above all other formulas and equations) as its mathematical entity.

This is the result of my over 25 years of research.

Dr.Mehran Basti

Mehran Basti

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:30 am

Guest

Quote:

Hi Basti

It means the universe in its heart mathematically
communicating with
Riccati, (which stands out above all other formulas
and equations) as
its mathematical entity.

OK.

The universe has a heart. This means that somewhere
within the universe
there is a ping ping ping of a beating heart. The
Universe's heart.

THEN:

This heart "communicates" with "Ricatti".

Jacopo Francesco Riccati (28 May 1676 - 15 April
1754) was an Italian
mathematician, born in Venice. He is now remembered
for the Riccati
equation. He died in Treviso in 1754.

This means surely that Riccati's soul is there (near
the heart of the
universe)and hears the bing bing bing of the
Universe.

OK.

Q.E.D.

------------------------------------------------

Do something.

------------------------------------------------------
-

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dear Newsgroup:

Hi Mr.Navia:

You are right.

You see I have been in such a world that yearly increasing my productivity enormously.

This has taken a great time of me,also gave me a lot of scientific enjoyment.

You look at all the positions I have applied for example on mathjobs.org; no one wanted to communicate with me scientifically!

I mean the government of the USA providing a lot of grants for seminars, and these people are silent over the issue.

What I had said about the heart of Riccati, means, really if you want to advance understanding of mathematics, you need to constantly communicate with Riccati, to solve the problems.

I have so many materials to write (hundreds of files I have on this topic), which need a mountain to shake up.

On top of the list is this behavior of the math community.

I will someday do something!

I am confident about my New Energy Formula.

Thanks for your note.

Dr.M.Basti

pnachtwey

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:26 am

Guest

On Apr 23, 5:09 am, filipovic81 <gr...@geometrie.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

Quote:

This is a joke, right???

Yes, it is a joke. Look at the formula. A high school student can see
the units aren't energy units. The units aren't even consistent
within the formula.
X’ +X^2 = g (t)
This looks like a fluid resistance formula where X is the velocity. X'
is acceleration. A fluid equation would have a coefficient c for the
resistance force due to velocity divided by mass. g(t) is the
force(t)/mass. In any case all the terms are acceleration not energy.
Duh.
X’ +c*X^2 = g (t)
Note, the fluid resistance equation is very old.

Now ignore Dr Basti and maybe he will go away until he figures out
unit analysis. Hopefully fitting energy units to that equation will
take another 25 years of research. Shame on all of you that responded
to this nonsense without pinning Dr Basti down on the units of his
equation. It you are going to tell someone he wrong then prove it or
make the other person prove he is right, otherwise you are wasting
your time and perpetuating the problem.

Peter Nachtwey

Mehran Basti

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:04 am

Guest

Dear news group:

I have already answered the question in sci.relativity.

The claim is that the tools of solving PDE or ODE of mathematical physics equations such as heat wave, etc. eventually boils down to solving Riccati differential equations (particularly the classical equations of energy).

This may be a Riccati differential equation or any satellites in the
Math-chart diagram.

It is unimaginable that all polynomials, integrals, linear
differential equations of variable coefficients of any higher order
and any non-linear higher order differential equations of any order
are indeed included in Riccati differential equations!

Well, after we have several years of international research on this
topic, the convergence along with sequences of examples and existence theorems of PDE and ODE demonstrates the claim.

Yes, it is beautiful to look at the stars on the sky, and feel that a
single equation, such as Riccati differential equations is behind the
fountain of mathematical structure.

There is no energy in the equation, but all the mathematical activities centered at Riccati

Dr.Mehran Basti

Mehran Basti

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:26 am

Guest

Dear news group:

Why I have selected energy as my example of Riccati equations being the sole source of mathematical activities of the Universe, is that I indeed solve classical equations of physics, such as Legendre, Associated Legendre, Bessel an others using Riccati (using higher order linear differential equations).

I wrote a letter to Harvard chair of math telling him how he ignored the scientific issues.

This is the letter:

Letter to Professor Clifford Taubes
Chairman

Department of mathematics Harvard University.

Dear Professor Taubes:

There are many instances in mathematics in which new methods done in different areas for example:

1-The fundamental theorem of algebra done within algebraic domain and in complex variables domain.

2-many improper integrals done in real analysis domain and also complex variables domain.

3-We have many methods of solving differential equations also done for particular differential equations.

I have declared that I am solving Riccati differential equations within the manipulation of higher order differential equations with new applications to classical equation solving such as Bessel differential equations.

Indeed solving these equations in this domain is very exciting and new.

On the polynomial side, I have also initiated solving them within the Riccati domain.

Not only they have failed to understand what is new methods are all about also they do not know what 140 years ago they had done to solve cubic and quadratic.

They are silent, this is stemming from illegal control of a few over others and illegal control of math in Harvard, Princeton, MIT and Cambridge.

New science has been created and aside from a position even your department was not excited about the new science.

This very narrow view of math, which is stemming from power of those who feel that the events of the past, might repeat themselves.

Well, illegal power and its exercise will certainly accelerate those events and the only thing about their behavior is their stupidity.

I hold you and your university and your colleagues at MIT, Princeton and similar places responsible for catastrophic phenomena in math community in America.

I do not know who has interest for you to occupy the chair of math department at Harvard and behave like a child.

I have spent more than a quarter of century on this research; you think you or your colleagues can shake my science? which remain with us for centuries.

By illegally preventing positions to me, it will not stop me not recognize your (or your colleague) status.

Sincerely

Dr.Mehran Basti

Their behavior is similar to other top Universities like MIT.

Dr.M.Basti

Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:14 am Science Forum Index