The Successor to Polywell - Solving Poincaré the Right Way

Curtis Faith · Post by **Curtis Faith** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:51 pm

I suggest not repeating libel. It makes you libel as well. Read the law. I'm suing Covel and you don't want to be involved. I'll take an apology.

- Curtis

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:58 pm

Well, here's what the CFTC said.

http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/enforcemen ... 77-07.html

You can't sue people for quoting what's on the Internet. If you want a counterclaim for malicious filing of frivolous lawsuits, then sue away.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:46 pm

Thank you. I was to dismiss it all as goofy nonsense, but now realize some of our slightly less critically agile Seniors may not.

There's some real evil motivation out there.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:48 pm

In theory, the top speed of the Mark I is close to the speed of light; in practice, there are many more problems to be solved before relativistic speeds can be approached.

Heh. You don't say.

Curtis Faith · Post by **Curtis Faith** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:50 pm

I was, in fact, never even talked to by the CFTC and didn't even know this was going on until it was over.

You might try checking video searches on Google and you'll find that using my math I predicted the rise in the markets starting last March. I also predicted a precipitous drop in the markets in November. I did this publicly. I warned people to get out. It is the only time I have ever done so in 25 years. How do you explain this?

I made 31 million trading and was given the largest account to trade by Richard Dennis who is one of the most famous trader's ever. His best friend was a heavy mathematician William Eckhardt. I know personally many billionaires. They think I'm smart because I am. I'm not bragging. I'm just stating the truth. There is a difference.

When you don't understand, a wise man asks questions and thinks, a fool thinks he is right, an asshole and a prick insults others. You choose who you are, I don't.

I don't care what you do, you won't effect the truth of my discovery. It has been there all along waiting for someone to discover it. I just hate noise. You are creating noise in the forum with your bullshit. I suggest you STFU.

I apologize to the rest of you for this intrusion.

- Curtis

Curtis Faith · Post by **Curtis Faith** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:55 pm

I'd be willing to bet anyone a legally binding bet of any amount whatsoever that we can build faster than light in less than 30 years.

- Curtis

kresobilan · Post by **kresobilan** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:19 am

Curtis Faith wrote:I'd be willing to bet anyone a legally binding bet of any amount whatsoever that we can build faster than light in less than 30 years.

The above sentence seems not to be falsifiable, therefore not a good basis for a bet. (E.g. how can you prove I was not able to fly yesterday?)
By the way, Mr Curtis, you were asked for a picture of spherically symmetrical fractal of your construction.
Kind Regards, Kreso

Curtis Faith · Post by **Curtis Faith** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:34 am

I'm happy to answer questions but I already gave enough information for anyone capable of understanding.

Try skydiving if you can't picture what I already described.

- Curtis

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:54 am

I suggest you STFU.

Heh. Well, that about sums it up, I guess.

Anyways, the Poincare conjecture was in fact solved by Perelman and his proof has been verified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincare_conjecture

After nearly a century of effort by mathematicians, Grigori Perelman sketched a proof of the conjecture in a series of papers made available in 2002 and 2003. The proof followed the program of Richard Hamilton. Several high-profile teams of mathematicians have since verified the correctness of Perelman's proof.

On December 22, 2006, the journal Science honored Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture as the scientific "Breakthrough of the Year," the first time this had been bestowed in the area of mathematics.[2]

And he refused the Fields Medal because he felt it unnecessary, not because he thought it was wrong.

He went on to say that the prize "was completely irrelevant for me. Everybody understood that if the proof is correct then no other recognition is needed."

An admirable lack of ego.

He has not, btw, refused the Millennium Prize, at least not yet.

"I’m not going to decide whether to accept the prize until it is offered."

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:33 am

Now that that's out of the way...