> hi

I guess now we have full proof that you are, indeed, a crackpot.

> i sead that becase the theory is realeted to phisics.so u are right.

Mathematics doesn't need physics to survive. At best one can use physical

concepts to motivate their work, but once a proper mathematical definition is

given, it should be possible to demonstrate it using mathematical tools

alone. Otherwise that `theory' is built on very shaky ground.

Anyway, now that you have shown the true nature of your `work', I consider the

thread closed and will no longer waste my time on it. Go ahead and clog your

festival with `publications' about crackpot theories all you want.

> but some times we can not proof some thing .we only define a difinition.

No. Euclidean geometry relies on the fifth postulate (through a point P passes

> then some body may accept that and others may not.for example about

> Non-Euclidean geometry ....

a single line that is parallel to another given line). Lobatchevsky asked

``hmm, what happens if I replace `a single line' with `infinite lines'?'' and

gave us hyperbolical geometry. Riemann asked ``hmm, what happens if I replace

`a single line' with `no lines'?'' and gave us elliptical geometry. Whether

you accept or not Euclid's fifth postulate, or choose to replace it with

Lobatchevsky's or Riemann's version, is beside the point -- their results are

consistent with their assumptions and can't be debated.

To see the point, let's postulate that some set S can be associated with two

operations + and *, such that

1. +,* are associative;

2. + is commutative;

3. * distributes over +;

4. For each element of the set, there exist inverse elements wrt +;

5. There exists an identity 0 wrt +.

Then I'll refer to (S,+,*) as a `ring'. Results about `rings' abound, just

like the results of Riemannian geometry. Now I'll postulate that there exists

an identity 1 wrt *, and call this new entity a `unit ring'. I can prove

results about `unit rings' that couldn't be proved about `rings' if I accept

this new postulate. Now if I postulate that the operation * is also

commutative, that there exists an identity 1 wrt *, and that this ring has no

divisors of zero, then I'll refer to my new entity where both postulates are

valid as an `integral domain'. Results about `integral domains' abound,

complementing and extending the results about `rings' and `unit rings'. Now

if I also assume the existence of multiplicative inverses, then I'll refer to

this new entity as a `field', which has an even stronger body of results

complementing the remaining results.

Now, there exist many algebraic entities that satisfies some of these

postulates but not others. So there's no point in arguing whether Euclidean

geometry is the `right' geometry or not -- it's a great tool to describe the

geometry of flat spaces, but it's useless to describe the geometry of a

sphere, for instance.

Sorry for the overly long diatribe, but some crackpot needed an intro to

mathematics.

Décio

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]