I will decribe the equations, through nook and cranny.
Will this make you happier?
- but you should know half of their identities anyway
Shall we start with the first three equations
This should be fun.
Firstly, I know plenty of the equations. The problem is you mash them together without any methodology or reason. If I said
E=mc^2 (1)
A = 4pi r^2 (2)
P = nRT (3)
They are all correct equations but they are from utterly seperate parts of maths and physics and so simply putting them together doesn't demonstrate understanding, nor does it give a coherent theory. If you can't say things like "The purpose of the following work is to derive the expression for the energy of a deformable solid" or "Under the assumption of rotational symmetry we can set k=1" when doing your work then it smacks of you having no clue what any of the equations mean and you just making *** up.
Secondly, I don't believe you know much of the algebra. In the past you've just copied and pasted from other forums or from other sources and when called on it you've just spewed more lies to avoid admitting you're a liar. Prime example would be this thread. The thread title is utterly unrelated to the material, which you lifted from a post of Ben's over on SciForum and when confronted with that, you denied it!!
Why are you waiting for a response from me? You posted gone midnight and seem to have waited around till gone 2am for a response. It might shock you to know but I sleep during the night. If you have an explaination for your work give it, don't just dance around with delay tactics.
And why are you posting a new thread? Can't you keep all your crap in the same place?
E=mc^2 (1)
A = 4pi r^2 (2)
P = nRT (3)
They are all correct equations but they are from utterly seperate parts of maths and physics and so simply putting them together doesn't demonstrate understanding, nor does it give a coherent theory. If you can't say things like "The purpose of the following work is to derive the expression for the energy of a deformable solid" or "Under the assumption of rotational symmetry we can set k=1" when doing your work then it smacks of you having no clue what any of the equations mean and you just making *** up.
Secondly, I don't believe you know much of the algebra. In the past you've just copied and pasted from other forums or from other sources and when called on it you've just spewed more lies to avoid admitting you're a liar. Prime example would be this thread. The thread title is utterly unrelated to the material, which you lifted from a post of Ben's over on SciForum and when confronted with that, you denied it!!
Why are you waiting for a response from me? You posted gone midnight and seem to have waited around till gone 2am for a response. It might shock you to know but I sleep during the night. If you have an explaination for your work give it, don't just dance around with delay tactics.
And why are you posting a new thread? Can't you keep all your crap in the same place?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 16 2009, 07:35 AM)
Firstly, I know plenty of the equations. The problem is you mash them together without any methodology or reason. If I said
E=mc^2 (1)
A = 4pi r^2 (2)
P = nRT (3)
They are all correct equations but they are from utterly seperate parts of maths and physics and so simply putting them together doesn't demonstrate understanding, nor does it give a coherent theory. If you can't say things like "The purpose of the following work is to derive the expression for the energy of a deformable solid" or "Under the assumption of rotational symmetry we can set k=1" when doing your work then it smacks of you having no clue what any of the equations mean and you just making *** up.
Secondly, I don't believe you know much of the algebra. In the past you've just copied and pasted from other forums or from other sources and when called on it you've just spewed more lies to avoid admitting you're a liar. Prime example would be this thread. The thread title is utterly unrelated to the material, which you lifted from a post of Ben's over on SciForum and when confronted with that, you denied it!!
Why are you waiting for a response from me? You posted gone midnight and seem to have waited around till gone 2am for a response. It might shock you to know but I sleep during the night. If you have an explaination for your work give it, don't just dance around with delay tactics.
And why are you posting a new thread? Can't you keep all your crap in the same place?
No i won't keep it in [the one place] - this is to go through it with you. It would simply flood it with yours and my own posts. Keep the theroem and the explanation alone. Being a PhD student of QM would have had this smashed by now, but you are most disappointing.
AND YES.... They are simple equations. I want to know what it is wrong with you, but you just can't seem to read what i believe to be equations which are correct. You want to know superfluous details like what does the equation do? what its name?
IS IT RELEVENT OH MATHEMATICAL GOD? rheatorical by the way, and before you say it is, bullshit.
And yeh, i was really bad at picking up math four and even longer years ago. about the same time my brother died in jail and you said i would have to take seven to maybe 10 years to get my PhD. ... ... well, i think i've not done to bad at all.
E=mc^2 (1)
A = 4pi r^2 (2)
P = nRT (3)
They are all correct equations but they are from utterly seperate parts of maths and physics and so simply putting them together doesn't demonstrate understanding, nor does it give a coherent theory. If you can't say things like "The purpose of the following work is to derive the expression for the energy of a deformable solid" or "Under the assumption of rotational symmetry we can set k=1" when doing your work then it smacks of you having no clue what any of the equations mean and you just making *** up.
Secondly, I don't believe you know much of the algebra. In the past you've just copied and pasted from other forums or from other sources and when called on it you've just spewed more lies to avoid admitting you're a liar. Prime example would be this thread. The thread title is utterly unrelated to the material, which you lifted from a post of Ben's over on SciForum and when confronted with that, you denied it!!
Why are you waiting for a response from me? You posted gone midnight and seem to have waited around till gone 2am for a response. It might shock you to know but I sleep during the night. If you have an explaination for your work give it, don't just dance around with delay tactics.
And why are you posting a new thread? Can't you keep all your crap in the same place?
No i won't keep it in [the one place] - this is to go through it with you. It would simply flood it with yours and my own posts. Keep the theroem and the explanation alone. Being a PhD student of QM would have had this smashed by now, but you are most disappointing.
AND YES.... They are simple equations. I want to know what it is wrong with you, but you just can't seem to read what i believe to be equations which are correct. You want to know superfluous details like what does the equation do? what its name?
IS IT RELEVENT OH MATHEMATICAL GOD? rheatorical by the way, and before you say it is, bullshit.
And yeh, i was really bad at picking up math four and even longer years ago. about the same time my brother died in jail and you said i would have to take seven to maybe 10 years to get my PhD. ... ... well, i think i've not done to bad at all.
I CAN ASSURE YOU my Gem equations use perfectly aligible and reasonable incurrances.
Still waiting for those explanations...
At this point the cut and paste explanation seems to be winning. Unless of course you can actually come up with those explanations.
QUOTE
I will decribe the equations, through nook and cranny.
At this point the cut and paste explanation seems to be winning. Unless of course you can actually come up with those explanations.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Nov 16 2009, 04:35 PM)
Still waiting for those explanations...
At this point the cut and paste explanation seems to be winning. Unless of course you can actually come up with those explanations.
I'm scribbling equations down, to help decribe, - do you know what would be better (and by the way concerning my language, i have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder) so maybe expaining entire equations
will become difficult. Could anyone who reads them and finds parts ''unsual'' - point them out, and i will deal with them individually.
Ok?
At this point the cut and paste explanation seems to be winning. Unless of course you can actually come up with those explanations.
I'm scribbling equations down, to help decribe, - do you know what would be better (and by the way concerning my language, i have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder) so maybe expaining entire equations
will become difficult. Could anyone who reads them and finds parts ''unsual'' - point them out, and i will deal with them individually.
Ok?
QUOTE (Photino+Nov 16 2009, 05:29 PM)
Being a PhD student of QM would have had this smashed by now, but you are most disappointing.
So you admit that someone of sufficient knowledge would have 'smashed' your work by now? Basically you just admitted your work can be 'smashed', you know it to be wrong. So why post it?
So you admit that someone of sufficient knowledge would have 'smashed' your work by now? Basically you just admitted your work can be 'smashed', you know it to be wrong. So why post it?
QUOTE (Photino+Nov 16 2009, 05:29 PM)
AND YES.... They are simple equations. I want to know what it is wrong with you, but you just can't seem to read what i believe to be equations which are correct. You want to know superfluous details like what does the equation do? what its name?
.
.
You utterly failed to grasp the point of my last post. Read it again.
QUOTE (Photino+Nov 16 2009, 05:29 PM)
And yeh, i was really bad at picking up math four and even longer years ago. about the same time my brother died in jail and you said i would have to take seven to maybe 10 years to get my PhD. ... ... well, i think i've not done to bad at all.
Several things :
1. You and I didn't cross paths till about Autumn 2007. That's less than 2.5 years ago.
2. It was about a year ago on SciForums you said your brother had just died.
3. I said at best it would take someone working hard to go from GCSE level knowledge to a PhD between 7 and 10 years. I didn't say you.
So you say your brother was killed about 4 years ago, at which time I told you you'd take a decade to get a PhD, 1.5 years later you and I first encountered one another and then 1.5 years after that your brother died. Do you have two brothers? Because its odd that you'd get the time of dead for a sibling wrong by such a huge amount. 4 years ago I wasn't on these forums. You and I had crossed paths many times before you said on SciForums you'd just found out he'd been killed. Either someone kept it from you for more than 2 years or your story doesn't hang together.
Yes, yes, I know what I'm saying is a rather harsh thing to say but given your web of lies in the past and the fact anyone can check for themselves you and I didn't cross paths here until mid 2007, much less than 3, never mind 4, years ago I would question the validity of your claims. I wouldn't put it past you to simply have thrown in your comment about your brother to try and make it seem like when you found out I was adding insult to injury by saying it'd take you 7-10 years to get a PhD. I don't think you will ever get a PhD in physics. And the actual comment I did say I've said in the last 2 years. I'm sure with a bit of searching in SciForums I can find out. And I might have your PM's still in my inbox overthere, showing you mentioning your brother sometime about a year ago, quite different from the 4 years you mention.
The problem with lying all the time is that eventually you make mistakes. Noone would say "My brother died 4 years ago!" when it was a year ago. That's not a mistake anyone would make. 4 years ago you and I didn't know one another so how could I possibly have commented about you and a PhD 'about that time'. Does 'about' mean "Sometime in the surrounding 3 years" now?
1. You and I didn't cross paths till about Autumn 2007. That's less than 2.5 years ago.
2. It was about a year ago on SciForums you said your brother had just died.
3. I said at best it would take someone working hard to go from GCSE level knowledge to a PhD between 7 and 10 years. I didn't say you.
So you say your brother was killed about 4 years ago, at which time I told you you'd take a decade to get a PhD, 1.5 years later you and I first encountered one another and then 1.5 years after that your brother died. Do you have two brothers? Because its odd that you'd get the time of dead for a sibling wrong by such a huge amount. 4 years ago I wasn't on these forums. You and I had crossed paths many times before you said on SciForums you'd just found out he'd been killed. Either someone kept it from you for more than 2 years or your story doesn't hang together.
Yes, yes, I know what I'm saying is a rather harsh thing to say but given your web of lies in the past and the fact anyone can check for themselves you and I didn't cross paths here until mid 2007, much less than 3, never mind 4, years ago I would question the validity of your claims. I wouldn't put it past you to simply have thrown in your comment about your brother to try and make it seem like when you found out I was adding insult to injury by saying it'd take you 7-10 years to get a PhD. I don't think you will ever get a PhD in physics. And the actual comment I did say I've said in the last 2 years. I'm sure with a bit of searching in SciForums I can find out. And I might have your PM's still in my inbox overthere, showing you mentioning your brother sometime about a year ago, quite different from the 4 years you mention.
The problem with lying all the time is that eventually you make mistakes. Noone would say "My brother died 4 years ago!" when it was a year ago. That's not a mistake anyone would make. 4 years ago you and I didn't know one another so how could I possibly have commented about you and a PhD 'about that time'. Does 'about' mean "Sometime in the surrounding 3 years" now?
Hmmmm.....
and my spellin was bad because i had a few wines)
Which one is it?
Still waiting for that explanation.
QUOTE
(and by the way concerning my language, i have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (and by the way concerning my language, i have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder) |
and my spellin was bad because i had a few wines)
Which one is it?
Still waiting for that explanation.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Nov 16 2009, 05:57 PM)
Hmmmm.....
Which one is it?
Still waiting for that explanation.
no i mean worse than usual. This time, take your pick:
a) is it too personal to ask about languistic abilities when really you can get through my work just fine
Extreemely ignorant to even make language a big deal?
2 million pound stake at play, so think hard.
Which one is it?
Still waiting for that explanation.
no i mean worse than usual. This time, take your pick:
a) is it too personal to ask about languistic abilities when really you can get through my work just fine
Extreemely ignorant to even make language a big deal?2 million pound stake at play, so think hard.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 16 2009, 05:47 PM)
So you admit that someone of sufficient knowledge would have 'smashed' your work by now? Basically you just admitted your work can be 'smashed', you know it to be wrong. So why post it?
You utterly failed to grasp the point of my last post. Read it again.
Several things :
1. You and I didn't cross paths till about Autumn 2007. That's less than 2.5 years ago.
2. It was about a year ago on SciForums you said your brother had just died.
3. I said at best it would take someone working hard to go from GCSE level knowledge to a PhD between 7 and 10 years. I didn't say you.
So you say your brother was killed about 4 years ago, at which time I told you you'd take a decade to get a PhD, 1.5 years later you and I first encountered one another and then 1.5 years after that your brother died. Do you have two brothers? Because its odd that you'd get the time of dead for a sibling wrong by such a huge amount. 4 years ago I wasn't on these forums. You and I had crossed paths many times before you said on SciForums you'd just found out he'd been killed. Either someone kept it from you for more than 2 years or your story doesn't hang together.
Yes, yes, I know what I'm saying is a rather harsh thing to say but given your web of lies in the past and the fact anyone can check for themselves you and I didn't cross paths here until mid 2007, much less than 3, never mind 4, years ago I would question the validity of your claims. I wouldn't put it past you to simply have thrown in your comment about your brother to try and make it seem like when you found out I was adding insult to injury by saying it'd take you 7-10 years to get a PhD. I don't think you will ever get a PhD in physics. And the actual comment I did say I've said in the last 2 years. I'm sure with a bit of searching in SciForums I can find out. And I might have your PM's still in my inbox overthere, showing you mentioning your brother sometime about a year ago, quite different from the 4 years you mention.
The problem with lying all the time is that eventually you make mistakes. Noone would say "My brother died 4 years ago!" when it was a year ago. That's not a mistake anyone would make. 4 years ago you and I didn't know one another so how could I possibly have commented about you and a PhD 'about that time'. Does 'about' mean "Sometime in the surrounding 3 years" now?
So you admit that someone of sufficient knowledge would have 'smashed' your work by now? Basically you just admitted your work can be 'smashed', you know it to be wrong. So why post it?
You mean... perhaps... oh i don't know... someone like you, perhaps, who prances around forums like a mathematical god? Get real - grunts, holding in a gust of laughter.
You utterly failed to grasp the point of my last post. Read it again.
Several things :
1. You and I didn't cross paths till about Autumn 2007. That's less than 2.5 years ago.
2. It was about a year ago on SciForums you said your brother had just died.
3. I said at best it would take someone working hard to go from GCSE level knowledge to a PhD between 7 and 10 years. I didn't say you.
So you say your brother was killed about 4 years ago, at which time I told you you'd take a decade to get a PhD, 1.5 years later you and I first encountered one another and then 1.5 years after that your brother died. Do you have two brothers? Because its odd that you'd get the time of dead for a sibling wrong by such a huge amount. 4 years ago I wasn't on these forums. You and I had crossed paths many times before you said on SciForums you'd just found out he'd been killed. Either someone kept it from you for more than 2 years or your story doesn't hang together.
Yes, yes, I know what I'm saying is a rather harsh thing to say but given your web of lies in the past and the fact anyone can check for themselves you and I didn't cross paths here until mid 2007, much less than 3, never mind 4, years ago I would question the validity of your claims. I wouldn't put it past you to simply have thrown in your comment about your brother to try and make it seem like when you found out I was adding insult to injury by saying it'd take you 7-10 years to get a PhD. I don't think you will ever get a PhD in physics. And the actual comment I did say I've said in the last 2 years. I'm sure with a bit of searching in SciForums I can find out. And I might have your PM's still in my inbox overthere, showing you mentioning your brother sometime about a year ago, quite different from the 4 years you mention.
The problem with lying all the time is that eventually you make mistakes. Noone would say "My brother died 4 years ago!" when it was a year ago. That's not a mistake anyone would make. 4 years ago you and I didn't know one another so how could I possibly have commented about you and a PhD 'about that time'. Does 'about' mean "Sometime in the surrounding 3 years" now?
So you admit that someone of sufficient knowledge would have 'smashed' your work by now? Basically you just admitted your work can be 'smashed', you know it to be wrong. So why post it?
You mean... perhaps... oh i don't know... someone like you, perhaps, who prances around forums like a mathematical god? Get real - grunts, holding in a gust of laughter.
Well done on completely failing to retort anything I said, even my accusation you have lied about the death of your brother. The fact you ignored what would normally outrage someone who wasn't lying leads me to the conclusion you were, indeed, lying.
And you have utterly failed to live up to your argeement to explain your workings. Yet another lie from you.
And you have utterly failed to live up to your argeement to explain your workings. Yet another lie from you.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 16 2009, 06:29 PM)
Well done on completely failing to retort anything I said, even my accusation you have lied about the death of your brother. The fact you ignored what would normally outrage someone who wasn't lying leads me to the conclusion you were, indeed, lying.
And you have utterly failed to live up to your argeement to explain your workings. Yet another lie from you.
To be quite honest, i'd rather you leave my brothers death out of this. It's not a subejct that any sane person would bring up just to bring down someone.
You truely are the spit of pure selfishness, ingnorance and most of all, pompous.
And you have utterly failed to live up to your argeement to explain your workings. Yet another lie from you.
To be quite honest, i'd rather you leave my brothers death out of this. It's not a subejct that any sane person would bring up just to bring down someone.
You truely are the spit of pure selfishness, ingnorance and most of all, pompous.
Still waiting for the explanation that is the entire purpose behind this thread.
Is it coming soon?
It's been considerably longer than an hour.
Is it coming soon?
It's been considerably longer than an hour.
QUOTE (Photino+Nov 16 2009, 02:34 PM)
To be quite honest, i'd rather you leave my brothers death out of this. It's not a subejct that any sane person would bring up just to bring down someone.
Hmm, wasn't it you who just brought up the topic of your brother's death? As seen in the following quote taken from this page:
Hmm, wasn't it you who just brought up the topic of your brother's death? As seen in the following quote taken from this page:
QUOTE (Photino+Nov 16 2009, 11:29 AM)
about the same time my brother died in jail and you said i would have to take seven to maybe 10 years to get my PhD.
Thank goodness this person is is banned! Starting a thread like this, prognosticating mysterious equations that would legitimize himself, yet only making excuses and castigating a forum member.
Thank goodness this person is is banned! Starting a thread like this, prognosticating mysterious equations that would legitimize himself, yet only making excuses and castigating a forum member.
Actually, Photino has been free to post since April 10, 2009. Do you think I should suspend him again or ban him for all time?
Oh really? I guess I'm not clear on the details of how the warning system works.
He seems like a useless member to me, but unfortunately I get the impression from past account suspensions that banning him would just result in another sock puppet.
He seems like a useless member to me, but unfortunately I get the impression from past account suspensions that banning him would just result in another sock puppet.
This is a quote from Photino
That was many hours ago. At this point it seems obvious that Alphanumeric's theory about Photino simply cutting and pasting equations he found elsewhere is the most likely explanation.
I am ok to wait though. Maybe he was abducted by the CIA to work on a secret scientific mission or something equally probable.
Anyway... my suggestion would be to say that should not be allowed to post anything until he has made good on his promise.
QUOTE
I will explain to you personally, give me an hour to write it out...
That was many hours ago. At this point it seems obvious that Alphanumeric's theory about Photino simply cutting and pasting equations he found elsewhere is the most likely explanation.
I am ok to wait though. Maybe he was abducted by the CIA to work on a secret scientific mission or something equally probable.
Anyway... my suggestion would be to say that should not be allowed to post anything until he has made good on his promise.
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 16 2009, 10:33 PM)
Actually, Photino has been free to post since April 10, 2009. Do you think I should suspend him again or ban him for all time?
Ban him, he's just an unrepenting spammer.
Ban him, he's just an unrepenting spammer.
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 16 2009, 10:33 PM)
Actually, Photino has been free to post since April 10, 2009. Do you think I should suspend him again or ban him for all time?
I think photino should have to complete what this thread intended. Show a correspondence between his chicken scratch and real phenomena. If he doesn't then..... you're the boss. BTW a venue such as PhysForum without moderation becomes a playground for sociopathic nitwits.
I think photino should have to complete what this thread intended. Show a correspondence between his chicken scratch and real phenomena. If he doesn't then..... you're the boss. BTW a venue such as PhysForum without moderation becomes a playground for sociopathic nitwits.
QUOTE (Photino+Nov 16 2009, 08:34 PM)
To be quite honest, i'd rather you leave my brothers death out of this. It's not a subejct that any sane person would bring up just to bring down someone.
So why did you bring it up?
So why did you bring it up?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Nov 16 2009, 07:55 PM)
Still waiting for the explanation that is the entire purpose behind this thread.
Is it coming soon?
It's been considerably longer than an hour.
Oh what a ruckus of the mind this became to be. Never mind how buisy i have been with more impotant stuff.
I never realized how much detail depended within each and every symbol, action and fields and vortex's. But by golly it was good to finish the theorem.
But now it will take a maximum of two days to write out, using a non-latex format. So, a little more patience is required. It's on its way.
Is it coming soon?
It's been considerably longer than an hour.
Oh what a ruckus of the mind this became to be. Never mind how buisy i have been with more impotant stuff.
I never realized how much detail depended within each and every symbol, action and fields and vortex's. But by golly it was good to finish the theorem.
But now it will take a maximum of two days to write out, using a non-latex format. So, a little more patience is required. It's on its way.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 17 2009, 08:00 AM)
So why did you bring it up?
Alphanumeric,
You have been a bully over many from day one i met you. You are so abnoxious you actually drive individuals to say things they don't mean, or otherwise, would never tell.
This is human behaviour, ''actual scientist''.
Alphanumeric,
You have been a bully over many from day one i met you. You are so abnoxious you actually drive individuals to say things they don't mean, or otherwise, would never tell.
This is human behaviour, ''actual scientist''.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 17 2009, 02:46 AM)
I think photino should have to complete what this thread intended. Show a correspondence between his chicken scratch and real phenomena. If he doesn't then..... you're the boss. BTW a venue such as PhysForum without moderation becomes a playground for sociopathic nitwits.
After this thesis, i will be more than happy never to return again. That is a promise.
So doing this as fast as possible is imperative.
After this thesis, i will be more than happy never to return again. That is a promise.
So doing this as fast as possible is imperative.
QUOTE (Photino+Nov 17 2009, 09:28 AM)
I never realized how much detail depended within each and every symbol, action and fields and vortex's. But by golly it was good to finish the theorem.
An explaination would go along the lines of
"Given the equation for [something] given in Section 2 of [paper reference], I apply [equation] from [other paper] to obtain equation 2
[equation]
Under a transformation [something] this takes on the same form as the expression for [something] in [paper reference]
[another equation]
By relabelling [relabelling] we can see this turns into the expression for [something] and thus I've proven the link between [something] and [something]"
That doesn't take long to type. You don't have to explain what an integral is or a partial derivative, you need to put the equations you use in context. Where did you get your initial equations from? What do they represent? Why are you doing the algebraic manipulation you are? What is it leading to? What other assumptions have you made? What does the final equation tell you about the system you're describing? Of what use is it?
That's what an explaination is, not "t is the symbol for time, x is a spacial coordinate. Integrals are [link to Wikipedia page on integrals]". If you can't frame your work in the context of the area of physics you are trying to work in then it shows you really don't understand the stuff you're saying. Which means it makes people think you just copied and pasted from other people's work. That way you avoid having mathematical errors but you fail to show any understanding.
You seriously are deluded if you think an afternoons copy and pasting is 'a thesis'. Or is this another example of you having no clue about terminology in the world of academia?
An explaination would go along the lines of
"Given the equation for [something] given in Section 2 of [paper reference], I apply [equation] from [other paper] to obtain equation 2
[equation]
Under a transformation [something] this takes on the same form as the expression for [something] in [paper reference]
[another equation]
By relabelling [relabelling] we can see this turns into the expression for [something] and thus I've proven the link between [something] and [something]"
That doesn't take long to type. You don't have to explain what an integral is or a partial derivative, you need to put the equations you use in context. Where did you get your initial equations from? What do they represent? Why are you doing the algebraic manipulation you are? What is it leading to? What other assumptions have you made? What does the final equation tell you about the system you're describing? Of what use is it?
That's what an explaination is, not "t is the symbol for time, x is a spacial coordinate. Integrals are [link to Wikipedia page on integrals]". If you can't frame your work in the context of the area of physics you are trying to work in then it shows you really don't understand the stuff you're saying. Which means it makes people think you just copied and pasted from other people's work. That way you avoid having mathematical errors but you fail to show any understanding.
QUOTE
After this thesis
Don't delude yourself. You have less than 5 pages of algebra. That's a paper, at most. If you could explain your work. If you could put it in context. If it weren't just mass plagiarism and bullshit. A thesis is a culmination of several years work, which is formed of work from several papers, some or all of whom have been published in a journal by the time of submission. Typical thesis length is 80~200 pages. 80 pages, including bookwork introduction, summary and appendix is considered short. I'm 40% the way through writing mine and I'm on page 96. And I haven't even written the introduction yet, that's another free 10+ pages. Or included any references. You seriously are deluded if you think an afternoons copy and pasting is 'a thesis'. Or is this another example of you having no clue about terminology in the world of academia?
This was hard to do, because with the standard amount of equations - and to their lengthly detail, this was not a matter of a day or so job. It's taken me at least 2 years to create these, and a few latter equations where inspired by someone you know; Vern.
Implicit things to know
F_g=-▼φMg (1)
Describes a particle moving in a gravitational field, sometimes interpreted as the gravitational moving charge
Multiply (vt)^2 on both sides → (F_gvt)² (2) - which is obviously a rest-energy-gravitational-force relation.
φ' - is the energy scalar field
Vφ'- is the potential of this energy scalar field
we define wave functions explicitely under retarded and advanced waves, which are concurrently hot in the Transactional Interpretation. Incoming fields will be represented as Ψ' where outgoing simply Ψ.
Obviously under amplitude theory the chances of finding an eigenstate of either wave functions is given as ∫|ψ|²=1. This will become important for the function of k represented in the expression |(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>| because it involves highly complicated vortex's - complicated to keep up with i mean.
In the expression given as (F_gvt)², it has dimensions (M_Gc²)², AND WE will soon find out how tensor contraction is related to this.
Other things needed to be known are the following derivations made by Planck himself:
M²=ћ(c/G) (the famous mass-sqaured term)
ћc=GM²
and that β=v/c (a trig-function)
and supercomplex no.'s denoted as ξ, and this beside any imaginary number to the power of two which usually yields a negative value does not. It remains perfectly positive.
Vortex Information
First for the record:
∫φ(x)=D(ψ,ψ)(x,1... ...x,2) ... dφ(x_n)
∞
=πdψdψ(x_i) (A)
i
has a conjugate form
∫φ(x)=D(ψ*,ψ*)(x,1... ...x,2)
∞
=πdψ*dψ*(x_i)
i
The first vortex of [A] is
k=Dψ*Dψ*DψDψ
A new vortex is added into the mix as to assertain the energy level of the gravitational potential Vφ so it acts as a gradient of the gravitational energy; it too has its own vortex made of incoming and outgoing signalling.
I tried to express the importance of
φ' - is the energy scalar field
Vφ'- is the potential of this energy scalar field
these very early on, because their roles are very complicated. It's geometrical in a sense, as it makes up in total an eight-way vortex when both vortexes acts on the final equation.
Since this new vortex needs a new description, it is given as:
∫(φ(x))²=D(φ',φ')(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ,φ')(x,1... ... x,2)
So equally one can assume for the gravitational gradient of the gravitational field to be:
∫(φ'(x))'=D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)
And are subsequent in the same probability density solutions. The two fields of D compactified gives an inter-related vortex as:
D(K²(k²))=(Dφ*Dφ*DφDφ)Dφ'Dφ'Dφ'Dφ'Dφ'
Mind to express k as as k sqaured, as it deal with the incoming waves and the outgoing.
This is the first of probably four posts which will explain the entire equation. I cannot continue for now but i will return later in admission to complete the thing, as requested.
Alpha,
You are wasting pages of your time. I am not even reading them. In fact, the just look like a brick of words as i quickly scroll past them, because i cannot content your obnoxious pompous attitude.
Ok. Just saving you the trouble.
Implicit things to know
F_g=-▼φMg (1)
Describes a particle moving in a gravitational field, sometimes interpreted as the gravitational moving charge
Multiply (vt)^2 on both sides → (F_gvt)² (2) - which is obviously a rest-energy-gravitational-force relation.
φ' - is the energy scalar field
Vφ'- is the potential of this energy scalar field
we define wave functions explicitely under retarded and advanced waves, which are concurrently hot in the Transactional Interpretation. Incoming fields will be represented as Ψ' where outgoing simply Ψ.
Obviously under amplitude theory the chances of finding an eigenstate of either wave functions is given as ∫|ψ|²=1. This will become important for the function of k represented in the expression |(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>| because it involves highly complicated vortex's - complicated to keep up with i mean.
In the expression given as (F_gvt)², it has dimensions (M_Gc²)², AND WE will soon find out how tensor contraction is related to this.
Other things needed to be known are the following derivations made by Planck himself:
M²=ћ(c/G) (the famous mass-sqaured term)
ћc=GM²
and that β=v/c (a trig-function)
and supercomplex no.'s denoted as ξ, and this beside any imaginary number to the power of two which usually yields a negative value does not. It remains perfectly positive.
Vortex Information
First for the record:
∫φ(x)=D(ψ,ψ)(x,1... ...x,2) ... dφ(x_n)
∞
=πdψdψ(x_i) (A)
i
has a conjugate form
∫φ(x)=D(ψ*,ψ*)(x,1... ...x,2)
∞
=πdψ*dψ*(x_i)
i
The first vortex of [A] is
k=Dψ*Dψ*DψDψ
A new vortex is added into the mix as to assertain the energy level of the gravitational potential Vφ so it acts as a gradient of the gravitational energy; it too has its own vortex made of incoming and outgoing signalling.
I tried to express the importance of
φ' - is the energy scalar field
Vφ'- is the potential of this energy scalar field
these very early on, because their roles are very complicated. It's geometrical in a sense, as it makes up in total an eight-way vortex when both vortexes acts on the final equation.
Since this new vortex needs a new description, it is given as:
∫(φ(x))²=D(φ',φ')(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ,φ')(x,1... ... x,2)
So equally one can assume for the gravitational gradient of the gravitational field to be:
∫(φ'(x))'=D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)
And are subsequent in the same probability density solutions. The two fields of D compactified gives an inter-related vortex as:
D(K²(k²))=(Dφ*Dφ*DφDφ)Dφ'Dφ'Dφ'Dφ'Dφ'
Mind to express k as as k sqaured, as it deal with the incoming waves and the outgoing.
This is the first of probably four posts which will explain the entire equation. I cannot continue for now but i will return later in admission to complete the thing, as requested.
Alpha,
You are wasting pages of your time. I am not even reading them. In fact, the just look like a brick of words as i quickly scroll past them, because i cannot content your obnoxious pompous attitude.
Ok. Just saving you the trouble.
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Should I merge this thread with the other one he started, or would that be too confusing?
QUOTE
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 4 2009, 07:27 PM
Added to warn level For starting multiple related threads targeted at specific individuals instead of the one common topic.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 5 2009, 07:04 PM
Added to warn level Trolling with untruths and half-apologies.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 6 2009, 12:39 AM
Added to warn level For posting purported equations with terms which lack a connection to model or definition.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 9 2009, 09:54 PM
Added to warn level v^c is not a meaningful expression in physics.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 10 2009, 09:17 AM
Added to warn level Language. Lack of physics content. Puffery. Pontification without reasoned argument or evidence.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Apr 3 2009, 06:51 PM
Removed from warn level Need to make room for another suspension.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Apr 3 2009, 06:53 PM
Added to warn level Suspended 7 days for language and general abuse
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Today at 10:05 AM
Removed from warn level .... being banned ... need to make room ....
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Today at 10:06 AM
Added to warn level Banned for being completely worthless as a source of useful, reliable, verifiable communication.
Added to warn level For starting multiple related threads targeted at specific individuals instead of the one common topic.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 5 2009, 07:04 PM
Added to warn level Trolling with untruths and half-apologies.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 6 2009, 12:39 AM
Added to warn level For posting purported equations with terms which lack a connection to model or definition.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 9 2009, 09:54 PM
Added to warn level v^c is not a meaningful expression in physics.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Mar 10 2009, 09:17 AM
Added to warn level Language. Lack of physics content. Puffery. Pontification without reasoned argument or evidence.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Apr 3 2009, 06:51 PM
Removed from warn level Need to make room for another suspension.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Apr 3 2009, 06:53 PM
Added to warn level Suspended 7 days for language and general abuse
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Today at 10:05 AM
Removed from warn level .... being banned ... need to make room ....
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Today at 10:06 AM
Added to warn level Banned for being completely worthless as a source of useful, reliable, verifiable communication.
Should I merge this thread with the other one he started, or would that be too confusing?
Interesting...
Who is Mr Scientist?
The bit you have on here is quoted directly from this website...
Naked Science Forum
I wonder... if Mr Scientist was you... why did you not quote the whole thing?
Your quote.. and it is a quote despite not being shown as a quote... is from the bottom quarter of the page. I wonder why you don't quote the whole thing.
Can anyone shed some light on this puzzle?
Who is Mr Scientist?
The bit you have on here is quoted directly from this website...
Naked Science Forum
I wonder... if Mr Scientist was you... why did you not quote the whole thing?
Your quote.. and it is a quote despite not being shown as a quote... is from the bottom quarter of the page. I wonder why you don't quote the whole thing.
Can anyone shed some light on this puzzle?
I see that Photino just posted some definitions, yet I haven't a clue what they are for since he created this new thread without any reference to the old topic, and without explaining or even mentioning what his theory is.
A merge may be in order, but you're right -- it would probably confuse everything.
It would have been useful if he would have simply linked to the other thread in his first post
A merge may be in order, but you're right -- it would probably confuse everything.
It would have been useful if he would have simply linked to the other thread in his first post
That would be part of requiring him to be useful. I make no such requirements. But I will eventually ban those who aren't. 
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Nov 17 2009, 06:09 PM)
Who is Mr Scientist?
It's obviously Photino. If you look in other threads in that subforum you'll see he posts other 'essays' which are just mindless crap, mentioning Wolf plenty of times, who seems to be Photino's favourite physicist. In another thread he and Vern (a nut who got banned from SciForums too) delude one another and each other that they aren't wasting their time. Photino yet again says something which is just off enough to make you think "Eh?" by saying "I was attempting to analyse your thoory with tensor calculus". That's a sentence which suggests he doesn't actually know or do such things because anyone who is familiar with tensors and calculus would not usually say "tensor calculus". You either use tensors or calculus, tensors are part of calculus. It's like saying 'hot fire' or 'wet water', the inclusion of the extra word seems odd, as if its a concept not entirely familiar to the person saying it.
But then Photino doesn't know much, if any calculus. I occasionally ask questions on ScForums, since I know a few postgrads also read there, and one of them was about vector calculus and happened to be during a period where Photino and I were PM'ing insults to one another. He honestly wondered why I didn't ask him for help, wondering if I was too stuck up or too much of a jerk to ask him for help. It's like a deaf man wondering why no one asks him to be in their band.
It's obviously Photino. If you look in other threads in that subforum you'll see he posts other 'essays' which are just mindless crap, mentioning Wolf plenty of times, who seems to be Photino's favourite physicist. In another thread he and Vern (a nut who got banned from SciForums too) delude one another and each other that they aren't wasting their time. Photino yet again says something which is just off enough to make you think "Eh?" by saying "I was attempting to analyse your thoory with tensor calculus". That's a sentence which suggests he doesn't actually know or do such things because anyone who is familiar with tensors and calculus would not usually say "tensor calculus". You either use tensors or calculus, tensors are part of calculus. It's like saying 'hot fire' or 'wet water', the inclusion of the extra word seems odd, as if its a concept not entirely familiar to the person saying it.
But then Photino doesn't know much, if any calculus. I occasionally ask questions on ScForums, since I know a few postgrads also read there, and one of them was about vector calculus and happened to be during a period where Photino and I were PM'ing insults to one another. He honestly wondered why I didn't ask him for help, wondering if I was too stuck up or too much of a jerk to ask him for help. It's like a deaf man wondering why no one asks him to be in their band.
QUOTE
Multiply (vt)² on both sides → (F_gvt)²
No, multiplying both sides by (vt)² gives you F_g (vt)² on the left hand side, not (F_gvt)²QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Multiply (vt)² on both sides → (F_gvt)² |
No, multiplying both sides by (vt)² gives you F_g (vt)² on the left hand side, not (F_gvt)²
φ' - is the energy scalar field
Energy is not a scalar field in its own right. It's a scalar and scalar fields can have energy but energy isn't a scalar field in the sense the Higgs is. Energy is a quantity which you can construct as an observable via expectation values due that's different, it's a property of something, not a thing in and off itself.
φ' - is the energy scalar field
Energy is not a scalar field in its own right. It's a scalar and scalar fields can have energy but energy isn't a scalar field in the sense the Higgs is. Energy is a quantity which you can construct as an observable via expectation values due that's different, it's a property of something, not a thing in and off itself.
QUOTE
Vφ'- is the potential of this energy scalar field
Is this Vφ' = V * φ' or V(φ')?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Vφ'- is the potential of this energy scalar field |
Is this Vφ' = V * φ' or V(φ')?
Obviously under amplitude theory the chances of finding an eigenstate of either wave functions is given as ∫|ψ|²=1
Obviously under amplitude theory the chances of finding an eigenstate of either wave functions is given as ∫|ψ|²=1
This is wrong. You've simply said ψ is normalised. You don't do anything to do with eigenstates. And there's no such thing as 'amplitude theory', the amplitude is simply normalised.
QUOTE
This will become important for the function of k represented in the expression |(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|
Which you fail to define.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This will become important for the function of k represented in the expression |(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>| |
Which you fail to define.
because it involves highly complicated vortex's - complicated to keep up with i mean.
because it involves highly complicated vortex's - complicated to keep up with i mean.
Speak for yourself. You don't even understand differential forms. 
QUOTE
n the expression given as (F_gvt)², it has dimensions (M_Gc²)², AND WE will soon find out how tensor contraction is related to this.
Except that you got your F_g squared wrong and nowhere in your entire post do you do anything to do with tensors.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| n the expression given as (F_gvt)², it has dimensions (M_Gc²)², AND WE will soon find out how tensor contraction is related to this. |
Except that you got your F_g squared wrong and nowhere in your entire post do you do anything to do with tensors.
Other things needed to be known are the following derivations made by Planck himself:
M²=ћ(c/G) (the famous mass-sqaured term)
ћc=GM²
and that β=v/c (a trig-function)
Other things needed to be known are the following derivations made by Planck himself:
M²=ћ(c/G) (the famous mass-sqaured term)
ћc=GM²
and that β=v/c (a trig-function)
Firstly, you never use any of those expressions. Secondly, you don't explain why you're workign with Planck units. Thirdly how the *** is β=v/c a trig function? It's quite clear why you said that though, because β=v/c is a parameter used in special relativity and its often convenient to work with tanh(x) = β = v/c, relating to the rapidity. You failed to understand the expressions and just threw in a word you think might make people think you know what your'e on about. And worst of all tanh is a hyperbolic function, not a trig one! This is A Level maths stuff. Obviously your HND didn't cover that.
QUOTE
and supercomplex no.'s denoted as ξ, and this beside any imaginary number to the power of two which usually yields a negative value does not. It remains perfectly positive.
And why do supercomplexes come into it? You don't use ξ anywhere in your post, you don't use anything more advanced than a bit of algebra. Yet another buzzword you throw in for no reason other than to deceive people.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and supercomplex no.'s denoted as ξ, and this beside any imaginary number to the power of two which usually yields a negative value does not. It remains perfectly positive. |
And why do supercomplexes come into it? You don't use ξ anywhere in your post, you don't use anything more advanced than a bit of algebra. Yet another buzzword you throw in for no reason other than to deceive people.
The first vortex of [A] is
k=Dψ*Dψ*DψDψ
The first vortex of [A] is
k=Dψ*Dψ*DψDψ
You've failed to define what a vortex is. How is this a 'vortex'? What definition as you using?
QUOTE
A new vortex is added into the mix as to assertain the energy level of the gravitational potential Vφ so it acts as a gradient of the gravitational energy; it too has its own vortex made of incoming and outgoing signalling.
Except you fail to mention V anywhere in yoru work other than 'It's a potential'. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A new vortex is added into the mix as to assertain the energy level of the gravitational potential Vφ so it acts as a gradient of the gravitational energy; it too has its own vortex made of incoming and outgoing signalling. |
Except you fail to mention V anywhere in yoru work other than 'It's a potential'.
A new vortex is added into the mix as to assertain the energy level of the gravitational potential Vφ so it acts as a gradient of the gravitational energy; it too has its own vortex made of incoming and outgoing signalling.
A new vortex is added into the mix as to assertain the energy level of the gravitational potential Vφ so it acts as a gradient of the gravitational energy; it too has its own vortex made of incoming and outgoing signalling.
Except you fail to mention V anywhere in yoru work other than 'It's a potential'.
QUOTE
hese very early on, because their roles are very complicated. It's geometrical in a sense, as it makes up in total an eight-way vortex when both vortexes acts on the final equation.
Utterly meaningless and without any justification.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| hese very early on, because their roles are very complicated. It's geometrical in a sense, as it makes up in total an eight-way vortex when both vortexes acts on the final equation. |
Utterly meaningless and without any justification.
Since this new vortex needs a new description, it is given as:
∫(φ(x))²=D(φ',φ')(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ,φ')(x,1... ... x,2)
Since this new vortex needs a new description, it is given as:
∫(φ(x))²=D(φ',φ')(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ,φ')(x,1... ... x,2)
Why this form and not something else? You pluck it from nowhere.
QUOTE
So equally one can assume for the gravitational gradient of the gravitational field to be:
∫(φ'(x))'=D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)
Except that you haven't constructed the potential, you're simply making another unjustified statement.∫(φ'(x))'=D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So equally one can assume for the gravitational gradient of the gravitational field to be: ∫(φ'(x))'=D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2)D(φ*,φ*)(x,1... ... x,2) |
Except that you haven't constructed the potential, you're simply making another unjustified statement.
And are subsequent in the same probability density solutions.
And are subsequent in the same probability density solutions.
A statement you completely fail to explain. What precisely does this mean.
QUOTE
You are wasting pages of your time. I am not even reading them. In fact, the just look like a brick of words as i quickly scroll past them, because i cannot content your obnoxious pompous attitude.
It's okay, you scroll down and ignore me. I'll just point out all your BS without any reply from you. The fact you ignore all the errors people point out doesn't magically make you right. Just makes you an idiot. But then you're already an idiot. You say I'm wasting my time, you post dozens of these 'essays' on a great many forums and you accomplish nothing.
Wow! You actually read it all?!
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 17 2009, 07:40 PM)
Wow! You actually read it all?!
Yes, AN is a seriously thorough type.
Yes, AN is a seriously thorough type.
Some more math...
AN vs Phot = Phot pwnd
AN vs Phot = Phot pwnd
I think that's an old theorem.
Well I guess Photino shouldn't be banned if someone is willing to read his entire post.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.