Jesus Christ said: "If you perceive the verity - the verity will make you free." Pilat asked : "What is verity?" Jesus Christ didn't answer. Why? This book has got such words: "a pronounced word is a lie". I think it's true. A thought can't be expressed by words. Only talented writers can express with the help of the words their thoughts approaching their true meaning. Moreover, can we always understand them correctly? How could Jesus tell about the VERITY with words? And how can we perceive the verity? Not by means of words. Here comes the first verity

The problem is : we don't always understand what Mathematics tells us. We can't always ask it correct questions. But we are learning. We have understood what vector algebra tells us. Mathematics can describe EVERYTHING. Who said "no"? You are sitting in front of the computer and this machine is mathematical one : you can watch films, pictures, listen to music.Not to say about computer trainers. We have already got it today. What about tomorrow? It should be noted that a computer always tells verity. A man can be forced by bribery or threatening to say that 2 x 2 = 3 but computer never produces such information even if you promise it to buy a new keyboard or to break it with a hammer. But is it possible that computer can be wrong and produce 2 x 2 = 3 ? It can be but only when a man has made a mistake.

In what way we should ask mathematics and how we understand its answers let's consider it using an example of any simple formula. Let's take acceleration.

Here it is, the very familiar formula.

Initial speed, finite speed, speed of what? Probably of a body? Where is it here? Is it only assumed? Let it be so. But there can't be any changes of speed without at least one more body presence. Well, is it also "assumed"? Actually this formula describes the process of two bodies' interaction - energy exchange, speed change is only consequence. The describing of the process is indirect. Studying this very process gives more information. By the way, while studying this process we can see at once that we can call it "equal in acceleration \ equal in deceleration" only by convention, because energy can be transmitted only by portions (they can be very little). Accordingly, the path of a body consists of sections with different speed, but within every section speed is constant. It was the example of awkward treatment of Mathematics. Later we'll demonstrate the other ones of the same kind. Ladies and gentlemen, you have read the first and second chapters of the site. Some of you have agreed to above mentioned subject, some haven't. I believe you are ready to perceive new world outlook now. Have you thought of what outlook lies in the basis of Physics? Physics as an experimental science was founded on the foundation of Geocentric theory (the Earth is flat, it's the center of the Universe and so on.) New outlook is Solarcentric theory which underwent three inevitable stages:

1. It just can't exist ( persecution of Kopernik and Haliley)

2. There may be some idea in it ( the appearance of some new branches in Physics)

3. It can be just like this but by no means in another way (at present time the Roman Church has pleaded guilty for item1). We are at the third stage now but the foundations of Physics are the same as they were founded before the first stage. It's quite clear: world outlook is rather a sluggish thing. In addition, the authority of outstanding scientists is pressing upon us, thus retarding the progress of Physics. Undoubtedly Mathematics as a science depends on world outlook to a lesser degree than Physics. It let Mathematics outstrip Physics. Let's take as an example the consideration of formula which actually forms the foundations of Physics.

It should be noted this formula was created not being vectorial and was used for a long time not taking its vectorial aspect into consideration. It was quite all right as to experimental Physics because experience of that time verified the validity of the formula. It's quite clear: velocity always has direction, in other words this quantity is vectorial. Now we have to designate it as vector. Consequently something in the right part of the equation must be a vector. For some reason or other they took vector as distance (length?) and had to name it "the vector of movement". Who can explain the physical meaning of this term? At the internet forums we discuss the notion of Time. And our formula in its present form seems to give definition of Time without ambiguity.

Transforming the formula like this: we get the definition: Time is ratio of the vector of movement to the vector of velocity. How do you like it? Let's go further: as a result of dividing a vector by a vector one more vector must appear which is directed perpendicular to the plane of these two vectors' functioning (see vector algebra). Where is it? Let's go on: the vector of movement and the vector of velocity are assumed to be directed along one line, it means sin=0, that is

t = o (??).

Well, Mathematics doesn't want to answer incorrect questions and above mentioned formula is a result of old mode of thinking.

Why could Einstein who had got bad marks in Physics at school develop new theories ? And the best pupils in his form couldn't do it? The reason is: they had adopted very well the foundations of the very geocentric outlook. Unfortunately we continue to teach future physicists in the same manner.One more example taken from the school text-book : potential body energy is influenced by attraction E=mgh . Here we deal with a specific case with one of the billions of celestial bodies (certainly it's the Earth, Geo).Let it be so, but what about Mathematics here? Considering m, g are const., then body energy increases to infinity. We know it's wrong. As a result those pupils who will adopt the foundations of geocentric theory well will get an excellent marks at school and enter the University without problems to develop Physics in future. It's good that we can come across exceptions, for example Einsteine.

* * *

We can see that Jesus Christ's and Kopernik's fates resembles each other and it isn't by chance. If we consider them to be personification of the phenomenon they are both Messiahs of the new world outlook. J.Christ said " I give you a new precept".At that time the Old commandment was the foundation of the world outlook. Those who have read it know its ideology is far from being humane. The developing mankind had to experience the transition to a new more humane outlook - Christianity or to its analogue - Islam. As mankind is integrating and the process of globalization is deepening these two religions (outlooks) acquired the status of being world ones.

The idea of Solarcentric theory was validated mathematically, it permitted to approach the Truth. Have we become more free? Undoubtedly the discovery of America, space exploration and the like are the result of outlook changing. Fortunately the process of approaching the TRUTH is everlasting.The purpose of the Man is to go along this road (Quo vadis?) and to become more free.

* * *

It's the end of Chapter 3. Are there still those who don't share my opinion? They say, you can meet people somewhere who still consider the Earth to be flat . Well, let's consider their reinforced concrete convictions do them credit. We were doing our best to move away from stereotypes which is always difficult. We hope to learn from your message how much we have suceeded in it. Please write to us, your opinions can interest not only me.

Meanwhile a new world outlook - the Universecentric theory is approaching us.

To part 4 ( "The Law of Gravitation" )

<