My Equation of the Universe
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
.....?
Why doesnt someone just give reiku some basic physics and/ or calculus problems...even adavanced algebra, then if he cant answer them we would know he was just bullshiting?
Why doesnt someone just give reiku some basic physics and/ or calculus problems...even adavanced algebra, then if he cant answer them we would know he was just bullshiting?
You asked where 'we' were and so I thought I'd say, since it both answers your question and it's a none-too-subtle way of me demonstrating that day in, day out I do the kind of physics you like to pretend you understand/do.
I mention it because it rubs it in your face. If I didn't 'hate your guts' (that's over the top. I like you but only in the same way a cat likes playing with a mouse before killing it) I wouldn't say it.
You're the guy who claimed to have looked into doing string theory research, but doesn't know even high school level physics. You're the guy who just started this thread, claiming to be attempting to describe the entire universe with an equation which says 0=1. You're the guy who claims to have a proof that there's only 2 universes.
If anyone here is 'extremely confident within their own ego', it's you. How many of these kinds of threads have you started? Dozens, both here and on PhysOrg (and I wouldn't be suprised if you're on other forums doing the same thing). I don't start such threads. I'll respond to BS like this with corrections. I'll happily help people with their homework or if they are making honest attempts at learning. You've made it clear you don't do this in education and you aren't interested in learning. So instead I'm just vitriolic towards you.
I'm confident in my knowledge. Not too much, not to the level of claiming I'm better than my lecturers, my supervisor, many of my friends or people like BenTheMan, but certainly better than most people and 101% certain I'm better than you.
And I have proven it and am proving it and will continue to prove it. So it's not that I'm arrogant, I'm just a better physicist/mathematician than you
And my 'momma' used to say "Stop pretending to be good at things you're not. Swallow your pride and stop talking BS'.
My math is right; because i have presented it to a PhD -- however, we have had problamatics in the past. Can we not qwork together, or shall i just take the hard route..
And I have proven it and am proving it and will continue to prove it. So it's not that I'm arrogant, I'm just a better physicist/mathematician than you
By Alpha\\\
And?Do you think you can unify physics, or might you consider some outside influence.... something you have rejected round here...?
By Alpha\\\
And?Do you think you can unify physics, or might you consider some outside influence.... something you have rejected round here...?
You claim that 1=0.
While there are mathematical systems where this is true, you're claiming it's true in the Reals. It's obviously not.
You also claim that $$0 \not= 0$$. That's also not true.
I did say this. What about that don't you grasp?
Are you sure? You said that on PhysOrg then you came back and started trying to get my attention again.
And I don't really care what you plan to say in your PM. If you made a serious attempt to start learning physics and maths, I'm happy to help. I can give a few textbook recommendations for high school level physics/maths and if you work through them and ask when you get stuck, I'll help walk you through them. That is the best, most efficent way you can do mathematics. Not just typing up mindless retarded essay (like most cranks do).
If you want to take me up on that offer, great. If not, don't let the door hit you on the way out and have fun wasting vast amounts of your time perpetuating your ignorance. You can speed the whole thing up by just hitting your head against a table repeatedly.
No. I am not so delusional to think I have anywhere near the ability to be able to do such a thing. I've seen the level that people like Weinberg, Witten and others work on, I know enough to know they are orders of magnitude beyond what I could ever acheive.
However, I do think that I can help take a tiny little step in the right direction, that's what my PhD is for.
I reject your nonsense. I have asked for help from people like Rpenner (for Mathematica), Euler, a few pointers from BenTheMan, many questions on physicsforums.com. You aren't a good source of information.
I'm a physics PhD. I have a masters in maths from Cambridge. Euler has too and he's a maths PhD at Cambridge. Both of us laugh (and then dispair) at your nonsense. But as pointed out, you claim that $$0 \not= 0$$. I don't even need a D at GCSE maths to know that's wrong!
No, but you do, and it's very, very sad.
What school?
Reiku said:
Avatar said:
That's grand!I almost spilled my tea!
edit: If I may ask, is he your therapist?
Last edited:
This is another complete lie. You do not even know how to do basic differential equations and you get your understanding of the Uncertainty Principle from a pop science book!
Every quantum mechanics question you've been asked you couldn't do!
I'm willing to help you learn physics but you have to be rational about it. You are not a PhD candidate for 'Copenhagen Physics' (the very name shows you're lying!), you don't know quantum field theory, quantum mechanics, string theory, relativity, electromagnetism or even classical mechanics.
If you want to get 'great fruit round here' you have to accept your level of knowledge and work your way up. Yes, it sucks that you'd have to read 'basic' physics books and you'd have to accept you're at least 4 or 5 years of hard work away from even getting close to QFT (and that's assuming you didn't have a job to use up your time) but that's how life is. I didn't finish A Levels and jump into string theory, I had to spend 3.5 years learning all the required courses. I bet BenTheMan was the same. I know Euler was (he and I were in many of the same classes).
If you want to learn you're going to have to swallow your ego.
$$\infty = 1$$ is false. And you didn't do anything consistent or viable with $$i$$. Define your integral properly, because integrating i, at face value, just gives you :
$$\int i \; dx = ix$$
Nothing magic there. Do you even know how to do integration? And I'm talking about multivariable functions, contour integrals, branch cuts, residue theory etc, not just $$\int x^{n} \; dx = \frac{1}{n+1}x^{n+1}$$, that's the first step in a very long road that is 'integration'.