Wednesday, March 28, 2007

 

String theory is a symptom of a deep problem

Mathematicians lie. They lie routinely but they do it in a way that works to keep them in business by lying in areas where they cannot easily be checked objectively—so they can just claim arguments are correct even when they are not—and they're seeding their corruption of intellectual activity into physics, as consider the following.

Factoring is kind of important. People rely on the idea that factoring big numbers is hard for security, but consider some basic math.

Start with the well-known congruence of squares

x^2 = y^2 mod T

introduce another congruence with a new variable,

k = 2x mod T so 2x = k mod T, multiply both sides by k, to get

2xk = k^2 mod T

and now add back to the original congruence of squares to get

x^2 + 2xk = y^2 + k^2 mod T

and then add k^2 to both sides and get

x^2 + 2xk + k^2 = y^2 + 2k^2 mod T, so finally you have

(x+k)^2 = y^2 + 2k^2 mod T

and I just showed how you relate EVERY factorization of one composite to a factorization of some other composite, which I call the surrogate.

Actually trying to use this idea to factor you need explicit equations:

(x+k)^2 = y^2 + 2k^2 + omega*T

And you can factor your target T by instead factoring 2k^2 + omega*T.

And it turns out that with a big T you still get big numbers to factor, but instead of one, you have as many as you wish.

IF that simple mathematics says to you what it says to me then you know that mathematicians have the world using a system where factoring one number can be transferred to factoring some other number, and if you do detailed analysis, you find that for an arbitrary non-zero omega and a non-zero k, as long as

2k^2 + omega*T

is over a certain size limit—that size depends on the size of T—then you can factor your target 50% of the time with some combination of factors of 2k^2 + omega*T.

If that sounds really complicated, just think of it as a two-way street where you can go either way factoring numbers and it's rather neat, and it's worth worrying about but mathematicians will NOT talk about it because it works, and they lie.

They know me. If they acknowledge this result I'll push forward all my other mathematical results as I'm using factoring to break them. Yup, I'm deliberately researching this area to PROVE they lie, so they can't talk about this research as then they just help me break them.

But why do they lie? I say because doing real mathematics is harder than faking it, and it's easier for groups of people to lie than most people accept, which is why they get away with it.

And that brings us to string "theory" with a lot of complexity but somehow, it doesn't give you much to experiment with, as mathematicians teach their tricks to the physics community.

Eventually you can have physics that doesn't work, is not correct, and no one knows or cares because physics people will, like many modern mathematicians, produce papers that sound physicky, with a lot of complexity, and there will be people who will cheer and claim stuff is correct, when it's just wrong.

Of course, you can think I'm wrong, but I just gave some basic math.

And, if I'm not, then the simple mathematics for breaking security systems is now out there as it has been for a few months as I talk about this, and I am currently working on coding an implementation to prove my point.

And mathematicians won't talk about it as I'm using this to get them, and you may end up collateral damage.

If that algebra above is correct then the world as you know it is about to change.

But consider, many of you probably know lots of complex mathematics and can check the algebra in your sleep, but a corrupted mathematical field means you will hold and wait, despite the implications because they are that good.

They are that good at lying.

And you are that intellectually weak, in actuality, no matter how brilliant you have deluded yourself into thinking you are.

If you can't trust some basic algebra, then how smart can you really be?





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?