tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post4236022793783035580..comments2024-02-05T10:28:25.472-08:00Comments on Transcendental Physics: EXPLORE THE MINDEdward R. Closehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09760282480966828326noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-11938335928168321682018-06-14T12:28:56.403-07:002018-06-14T12:28:56.403-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.jefkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09711668063131832494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-32794598484304882342018-06-14T12:16:56.544-07:002018-06-14T12:16:56.544-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.jefkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09711668063131832494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-64508863775418624512018-06-08T10:37:05.031-07:002018-06-08T10:37:05.031-07:00Oh... I need to read that other book then :)Oh... I need to read that other book then :)Zordial Quloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13876390588438779143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-28024179306255023212018-06-08T00:36:53.978-07:002018-06-08T00:36:53.978-07:00Excellent! I will friend you before I fall asleep....Excellent! I will friend you before I fall asleep. Thanks!Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09732465232711910769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-32862024170658302002018-06-07T17:52:10.394-07:002018-06-07T17:52:10.394-07:00Wayne, I'm on FB, so if you are also, send me ...Wayne, I'm on FB, so if you are also, send me a friend request and we can communicate more easily.Edward R. Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760282480966828326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-24449745369217691542018-06-07T17:42:41.474-07:002018-06-07T17:42:41.474-07:00Hello Wayne, Thank you for your interest. I quite ...Hello Wayne, Thank you for your interest. I quite agree with you that a short proof is less likely to contain errors that are difficult to identify than long, convoluted complex proofs. My proof depends on application of a very basic mathematical theorem: the Algebraic Division Algorithm. The proof is much less complicated than the reasons that it hasn't bee generally recognized! I will be happy to get a copy of the 1965 proof of FLT to you. If you type "Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem", or "FLT65" into the search box at the upper left of the Transcendental Physics blog, it should bring up the proof and relevant discussions. There is also a detailed history of the submittal of the proof to professional mathematicians and how and why it has been ignored and/or misinterpreted for so lomg on the blog site. I can email the proof and relevant material to you so you'll have hard copies to study at your liesure. I am snowed under with papers to edit, and a lot of other things right now, but I definitely will try to get the proof and pertinent discussions to you as soon as I can. Thanks again for the interest. Edward R. Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760282480966828326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-64150139123108335682018-06-07T11:35:22.741-07:002018-06-07T11:35:22.741-07:00I am educated layman who first heard of your work ...I am educated layman who first heard of your work via 'new thinking allowed' on youtube. As I am not a mathematician, I am curious why your proof of Fermat's Last Theorem goes unrecognized despite its brevity? Eleizer Yudkowsky, an AI polymath, once stated that the odds of a theorem being wrong is approximately 1 in 1000. It would seem to my mind a very short proof is far more likely to be without errors and easier to know if its true, whereas a very long proof might actually be false given all the steps.<br /><br /> Can I find a valid copy via Amazon? Also, do you believe it could be verified without any special knowledge and thus something any professor could verify? I remember the interview on 'New Thinking Allowed' stating it used techniques that were common at the time.<br /><br />I do this for my own interest primarily, perhaps something to pass along to my kids as I refused to believe in anything infinite as a teenager. But of course your collaboration with Dr. Neppe "closes" so many problems I had with those ideas. Its wonderful. And yet, I still need more confirmation given my lack of expertise. Surely recognition of your prior success would help with funding? <br /><br />Also do you have any desire to be interviewed for posterity or at least historical reasons? I plan on trying to get your ideas to various professors I know or new. Yet it feels like this is in vain. It feels like I am missing something very basic.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09732465232711910769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-78826683612081396122018-06-07T04:26:06.780-07:002018-06-07T04:26:06.780-07:00Thank you for this link. I read this several years...Thank you for this link. I read this several years ago, but am pleased to have it available again. I have lost or misplaced my copy, but I have a copy of Leadbeater's book "The Chakras", which I purchased in Baltimore in 1969. It has some of the same ideas in the preface and in the chapter on developing the chakras.Edward R. Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760282480966828326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-22313567900034888222018-06-06T14:06:00.550-07:002018-06-06T14:06:00.550-07:00Drawing from what you said about how we normally o...Drawing from what you said about how we normally only process a fraction of the complete energy spectrum that DOES reach us all the time, I highly recommend you read the following if you haven't yet:<br /><br />http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29399<br /><br />Keep in mind, however, that as you said, every perception we get is filtered by the lenses of our belief system.Zordial Quloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13876390588438779143noreply@blogger.com