dHARMA, KARMA, AND THE STATE OF BLISS @michaelcweir

Uploaded October 2014 | Updated September 2026, 2 days ago

DHARMA meansto hold the law, natural or man made.

The ultimte superpower - To know your past and future lives

Perfect Health be free of all degenrative diseases.

mantra success and problems associated with success

Tradak, samadhi, samayana, Gayatri self realization

Get what you want in the quickest way possible (for free)

The next size up to airship that can lift people

wealth, love knowledge, enlightenment from using the Ham Sa Mantra

$fermats last theorem, the original proof Heres Fermats original proof. See the drawing that was too large to fit into margin .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyX5uqyLLA&t=157s I am looking for someone to helpo write proof of beawl conj3ecture. there is a 1 $1,000,000 prize. This proof has been verified by a former professor of mathematics at Harvard. I am presenting this video in order to get any possible objections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2 Here is one use of irreducible fractions to prove square root of 2 is irrational. October 23, 2013 The view count is now over 1200. No person has come forth with a counter proof in the last 200 views. So my proof must be correct. Sept. 23, 2013I was waiting until the view count reached 1000 to make this statement, but the statement at 960 view count (September 28, 2013) spurred me to make it now. No one has been able to disprove the Theorem and there has been attempts to disprove the proof that were incorrect. So, I am making the challenge that the proof is correct. There have been a number of people that have read the proof but have been afraid of saying the proof is correct. That includes Sean Gomes. Even the mathematicians at Chapman University have been silent on the veracity of the proof. David B. Moore has tried several times to get faculty to respond, with no success. You can call him at 714-516-4590 to verify this for yourself. Ferrmats Dilemma The problem with this proof is that it may be possible for the larger denominator that makes the presumed smallest ratio for the rational number, in front of the term (x^n-1 + y^n-1), divides into this term perfectly. So which number is the real ratio? Is the proof really dependent on the language used? This question is what prompted Fermat to go on to prove the case for n=4, I am sure. August 16, 2013 Dear reader Look at what Sean Gomes has written about you Youtube is not a system for peer review. That is like asking a deaf man to distinguish mozart from cannibal corpse. All you have to do to prove him wrong is to invoke social media intelligence. retweet this link or post on facebook, etc. This is a solution using infinite descent along with Diophantine equations, a technique used by Fermat in many other theorems. This probably is the proof that he thought of, and it only uses very simple math. I prayed to God for the answer for the proof. He has delivered once again. This time I am remembering that he did it. July 17, 2013 My friend, Mike Slack, mentioned that I misused the term infinite descent in the proof. I did go back and check and the term was misused. Fortunately, infinite descent is not used in the proof. In thinking back on this mistake, I think I was seeing how Fermat started looking at this as a possible path to proof with infinite descent and discovered that the square of factor was double that of the calculated rational ratio, like I did.Thanks to Mike, I am able to explain this inconsistency. If you get smarter like I did, here is a video on how to do it. http://youtu.be/Dn0awOfrgBk I am attempting another impossible task, creating a space elevator. Here is a link to the contest I am in. http://contest.techbriefs.com/2013/entries/aerospace-and-defense/3823$