Dear Newsgroup:

Please find enclosed a PDF file of a Riccati differential equation in
a normalized form.

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1742434&tstart=0

This Riccati has been generated from another different class
polynomial of degree 31.

Since the polynomial has been solved (without integration), thus we
have the solution of the Riccati , for each alpha(t) and beta(t).

I believe it takes a lot of time to maple to solve some of them for
even simple values of alpha(t)=t and beta(t)=t^2.

Start substituting some values to see how Maple behaves.

This is one of my beautiful classes (different from the other
Riccati), and I believe with a supercomputer one can calculate
polynomials of over a 1000 degrees.

I will also enclose its Maple input.

We are in a NEW EXACT MATH world.

Dr.M.Basti

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%%. Light itself will travel
only 1%% further in space in any given interval. This is Closing
Velocity Theory.

Space is absolute. There is no space contraction and it is provable.
There are NO FLAT ATOMS.

Your motion cannot change the geometry of the universe. Just as there
are no flat atoms there is no flattened universe. These predictions
show a failing physics. The physics of flat atoms and a flat universe
is the proof of the failure of space contraction theory. What is
provable is time slowdown by Gamma.

Distances are absolute. Take the AU as an example.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

The moon isn't following the curvature of space around the earth. It
is taking a motion curve or geodesic that is magnified beyond space-
time curvature. The actual curved space-time itself is defined by the
null geodesic associated with light speed movement.

Motion curvature is the magnified curve that matter follows due to its
slower motion. This is matter geodesic. This is motion curvature
followed by all matter.

It is misleading to say the moon is following the space-time curvature
when it is really following its motion curve through instead.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

I have succeeded in detecting gravity waves with a very simple and
relatively cheap gravity wave detector.

http://www.16pi2.com/magnetic_scalar_waves.htm

The data showing the gravity waves is near the bottom of the page.
The data was for May 11-12. I have continued to record gravity waves
for May 13.

It also may be that this magnetic scalar wave detector is also
recording earthquake precursors.

Dave

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/05/12/he_seeks_a_route_through_.../

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession...

Dear Newsgroup:

I have already demonstrated that:

1-Riccati differential equations can be solved through the
manipulation of linear differential equations of higher order.

Thus we need to recalculate the entire classical equations of physics
such as Legendre,Bessel,etc.

I have already done some on my collection. These new methods will have
new applications different than those of classical solving equations
through infinite series.

2-Polynomial equations have been calculated through Riccati, as a
class.

3-There are new applications in solving systems of ODE, linear and
nonlinear differential equations as well as integrals.

It is my understanding that Riccati is the communicator for major
problem solving in mathematics.

4- there will be new numerical applications.

This will create a revolution in mathematics.

Although it may take a decade or two this research to influence the
mainstream research as I had mentioned before.

The proud way I present my private relativity is the reason why my
articles cause vexation to some meaningless worms, when with my
equations I prove how stupid they are and how big is the crisis in the
modern brothel-physics.

Dirty asslicking worms listen.
Einstein says that the inertial mass m of an electron increases by the
speed according to his equation
M = m / (1– V^2/C^2)^0.5. (1)

I say that the inertial mass m of an electron increases by the speed
according to my equation

M = m / {1– [(V^2 – v^2) / C^2] }^0.5 (2)

Similarly, Einstein says that the time-change due to speed is given by
his equation

T = t / (1– V^2/C^2)^0.5. (3)

I say that time changes according to my equation

T = t / {1– [(V^2 – v^2) / C^2] }^0.5 (4)

He also says that the length contraction is given by his equation

r = R (1– V^2/C^2)^0.5 (5)

I say that the length contraction is given by my equation

"Gravity"

Like almost everyone else, the writer started by assuming that General
Relativity represented good science and that it was his task to understand
that science. Almost immediately it became obvious that a flaw must exist
somewhere in its derivation. Allegedly, General Relativity and Special
Relativity followed The Principle of Equivalence but THEIR CONCLUSIONS WERE
NOT EQUIVALENT! In a Force-Length-Time systems of units, Special Relativity
and General Relativity provided:

Quantity Parallel Velocity General Relativity

Force F 1 1
Length L 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 1
Time T (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to recognize that these
transformations are NOT ANALOGOUS. Under Special Relativity, the
transformations for length and time are reciprocal. Under General Relativity
such a reciprocal relationship does not exist since the transformations for
length is unity.