Wrong Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture?

[questfortruth]

On December 22, 2006, the journal Science honored Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture as the scientific ``Breakthrough of the Year", the first time this honor was bestowed in the area of mathematics. However, I have critical questions about Perelman's proof of Poincare Conjecture. The conjecture states, that ``Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.'' The ``homeomorphic" means that by non-singular deformation one produces the perfect sphere - the equivalent of initial space. However, pasting in foreign caps will not make such deformation. The short proofs are given.

Source: On Proofs of the Poincare Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1912.0352

Another problem to be discussed is the following:
a collapsing pressure-free dust cloud shrinks. Inside this cloud is free-falling
astronaut. Obviously, that instead of being stretched, he will be compressed together with the
cloud. It is accepted, that the tidal forces rip falling (into Black Hole) astronaut into a subatomic cloud,
and the end-state of this cloud is a singular point. However, is obvious then, that this cloud begins
to shrink despite the tidal forces.

Source: Dark Matter and Dark Energy Explained by Fix to Vanishing of Falling Matter, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1911.0425

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Reminds me of the following "proof", although neither as clever nor as informative:

 

[blü 2]

On December 22, 2006, the journal Science honored Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture as the scientific ``Breakthrough of the Year", the first time this honor was bestowed in the area of mathematics. However, I have critical questions about Perelman's proof of Poincare Conjecture. The conjecture states, that ``Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.'' The ``homeomorphic" means that by non-singular deformation one produces the perfect sphere - the equivalent of initial space. However, pasting in foreign caps will not make such deformation. The short proofs are given.

Source: On Proofs of the Poincare Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1912.0352

Another problem to be discussed is the following:
a collapsing pressure-free dust cloud shrinks. Inside this cloud is free-falling
astronaut. Obviously, that instead of being stretched, he will be compressed together with the
cloud. It is accepted, that the tidal forces rip falling (into Black Hole) astronaut into a subatomic cloud,
and the end-state of this cloud is a singular point. However, is obvious then, that this cloud begins
to shrink despite the tidal forces.

Source: Dark Matter and Dark Energy Explained by Fix to Vanishing of Falling Matter, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1911.0425

Tell me, do you usually go to the International Journal of Mathematics to deal with your religious concerns?

 

[questfortruth]

Tell me, do you usually go to the International Journal of Mathematics to deal with your religious concerns?

The humankind shows the terrible conflict between feelings and logic. I caught you at the wrong moment, perhaps. Is everything OK? Violation of logic in favor of emotions - is simply called madness. I am talking not about you, but about Scientific Community. It's full of madness and stupidity because has the conflict between feelings and mind.

 

[blü 2]

The humankind shows the terrible conflict between feelings and logic. I caught you at the wrong moment, perhaps. Is everything OK? Violation of logic in favor of emotions - is simply called madness. I am talking not about you, but about Scientific Community. It's full of madness and stupidity because has the conflict between feelings and mind.

You make a good point.

Poor old maths and physics! To fall into the hands of humans, who can't go anywhere unless they take a full kit of emotions with 'em!

 

[questfortruth]

You make a good point.

Poor old maths and physics! To fall into the hands of humans, who can't go anywhere unless they take a full kit of emotions with 'em!

A contrarian argues that modern physicists' obsession with beauty has given us wonderful math but bad science
Whether pondering black holes or predicting discoveries at CERN, physicists believe the best theories are beautiful, natural, and elegant, and this standard separates popular theories from disposable ones. This is why, Sabine Hossenfelder argues, we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades. The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these "too good to not be true" theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.

Lost in Math

 

[blü 2]

A contrarian argues that modern physicists' obsession with beauty has given us wonderful math but bad science
Whether pondering black holes or predicting discoveries at CERN, physicists believe the best theories are beautiful, natural, and elegant, and this standard separates popular theories from disposable ones. This is why, Sabine Hossenfelder argues, we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades. The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these "too good to not be true" theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.

Lost in Math

In physics, elegance is often associated with successful ideas. But as you say, it'd be an error to equate elegance with success. Appel and Haaken's solution to the four-color problem involves solving hundreds of possibilities; first 1834 possible configurations, then reduced to 1482 cases, and at present down to 633 cases ─ the search for elegance has yet to result in elegance, but the theorem stands. Maxwell's equations are magnificent but highly complex. When Theodor Kaluza rewrote them for a world with a fourth spatial dimension in 1919, and thus greatly simplified them, his work might be said to have inspired the modern dream of elegance.

However, I don't think the search for elegance is a problem in itself. It may produce dead ends, and many people think M-theory, unable after decades to make a testable prediction or to solve problems other ideas can't, is such a dead end; but science is about the testing of hypotheses, and the testing of hypotheses is bound to throw up its fair share of failed hypotheses.

Whereas, going the other way, it was the Classical model of subatomic physics (no stranger to dreams of elegance) that led to the hypothesis of the Higgs boson, which was found to be not just hypothetical but real in 2012.