What's wrong, the gluon caught your tounge? Not like you. You usually let your oversized cakehole run you, George/Alphanumeric.
No, as of 10.40am this morning I was doing some marking so I didn't reply instantly.
As for oversized cake holes, I notice you couldn't retort anything I said. As usual. Instead you just swear at me.
p.s. So far, my math remains non-erreneous.
Other than all the things I mentioned. And that's just this thread. I could search for threads started by you in Pseudoscience and I'm sure that 90% of them would involve you posting equations whcih are wrong.
(Though, i must admit, admirally or not, i did make mistakes in the complex analysis but again, i see this not as psuedoscience, but a general mistake which a moderator must retain dignaty to teach to those who know less.)
Multiplying together i's isn't complex analysis. Complex analysis would be doing contour integrals and using things like stationary phase and residues to compute propogators in a field theory.
''So force is and when I multiply that by t I get units of ? Wow, so multiplying by time removes mass? Amazing. So that's where physics has been going wrong all these years!''
(by alhanumeric) in this post
...........................
Here is a philosophically-enhanced arguement, which will HOPEFULLY make you think twice. If the multiplication of time removes mass, then:
1) The de-Witt equation can easily be proved
2) In relativity, past and future do not exist, so present time, [[hence quantum quacks arguement]] in another thread in this physics subforum, then matter surely can't exist, unless there is a corresponding mathematical assertion, or contingeant affirmation between the relation: $$\Delta E \Delta t$$, which is a fundamental law of the zero-point potential vacuum (which i am happy to show the derivation).
You equated $$E^{2}$$ (units of energy) with $$\frac{F^{2}t^{2}}{M^{2}c^{2}}$$, units of nothing. That's wrong any way you shake a stick at it.
(By the way - this is an arguement it prooves the uncertainty between energy and time.... something which you overconfident dogmatic physical and non physical researchers like to involve.... errors in others, before they see their own.)
No, it doesn't prove it. You need to give the commutation relations between the two variables to be able to them work out the uncertainty in their simultaneous measurement.
(By the way - this is an arguement it prooves the uncertainty between energy and time.... something which you overconfident dogmatic physical and non physical researchers like to involve.... errors in others, before they see their own.)
I am not here to teach my known physics, but i will explain my own conclusion, with or wthout the need of math. Just so happens, you lot (exactly those who have entered and replied to this thread, are dilluional to a peak of ego where school children bully the outcast) - and trust me, more people than you know, could be on my side of this unfortunate outcome, of an overzealously-compactified group of so-called physicists, who haven't even reached their PhD's, in this good forum.
So you, someone without an A level, degree, masters or PhD in physics are trying to insult Prom and myself because we've not got our PhDs yet? Good one. Jesus, talk about an own goal....
Do you know what> Going back to Einstein/Alphanumerics thread no. 10, he forgets, or intentionally forgets the relativistic laws stating that if time removes mass, then mass can remove time.
Epic fail. Again.
Firstly, relativity says nothing of the sort. Secondly, the mistake you made wasn't to do with some particular complicated result of the Einstein Field Equations, you took something which has units of force (which has SI units of $$kg.m.s^{-2}$$), multiplied it by something which has units of seconds, (s) and
didn't get somethign which has units of $$kg.m.s^{-2}.s = kg.m.s^{-1}$$. Relativity's intertwining of mass, energy, time and space doesn't negate simple algebra. It doesn't allow you to say 2*3 = 5. It doesn't allow you to say "Mass = energy". E=mc^2 doesn't mean "Energy and mass have the same units", they don't, the c^2 has units.
So all you've done is you're either willing to tell further lies to try and dig yourself of a hole you made or you're so ignorant of the stuff you're talking about you honestly don't realise you're wrong. And the thing you should be worried about (or ashamed of) is that I can't tell which one you are, dishonest or stupid. I suspect it's a little from column A and a little of column B.
