Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 That is not the right way to do it. If your going to state proper context then follow the proper methods. I don't wanna that equation there is just perfect to anyone that notices to what it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) Why would they even look past such blatent mistakes? Would you trust an equation with such apparent mistakes? Can you provide them the complete mathematical proof showing they are not mistakes? No one will want to prove your equation. They expect you to have already done those necessary steps. You didn't do any parts by integration so I already know you can't provide one. This is exactly why we teach students to show their work. It provides the basis of the proofs. You recall that pdf on tensors you called crap? you have no idea just how useful that paper really is. A tensor is a function that describes a vector. That paper provided the precise proofs of each tensor. Those are the functionals of those tensors lierally. Edited December 21, 2017 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) Why would they even look past such blatent mistakes? Would you trust an equation with such apparent mistakes? Can you provide them the complete mathematical proof showing they are not mistakes? You didn't do any parts by integration so I already know you can't provide one. This is exactly why we teach students to show their work. It provides the basis of the proofs. You recall that pdf on tensors you called crap? you have no idea just how useful that paper really is. A tensor is a function that describes a vector. That paper provided the precise proofs of each tensor.Ya, I can not a student and already have, which that equation I just made is still a crap version using Newtonian gravity equation. Edited December 21, 2017 by Vmedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) Well then why are you waving it around like you did to me as some brilliant piece of work when you know it has such obvious mistakes? That really does give a bad first impression. Anyways you know it still needs a huge amount of work. I think we both agree on that Edited December 21, 2017 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 Well then why are you waving it around like you did to me as some brilliant piece of work when you know it has such obvious mistakes? That really does give a bad first impression.oh, it was brilliant for Newtonian physics, but not modern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 Well we live in the modern world now. 80% of my first year students have to be taught that lesson. That science has greatly improved since Einstein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 Here is your proof now be silent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) Lol don't silly that isn't a proof of an equation. Here is a professional proof of the energy momentum relation. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0402024&ved=0ahUKEwil6Li8rZrYAhVOwGMKHeVzD54QFgghMAE&usg=AOvVaw3F2GmQ11HXyqpTrEsKSIAH Edited December 21, 2017 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) Lol don't silly that isn't a proof of an equation.Isn't that a truth table in the last element. Edited December 21, 2017 by Vmedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) A proof shows how an equation is derived from from its constituent parts. Not the truth table. I posted an example on cross post. Edited December 21, 2017 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 A proof shows how an equation is derived from from its constituent parts. Not the truth table. I posted an example on cross post.oh, you never read any of my posts, so it is fair enough that I never was reading any of yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) No you assumed I didn't attempt to make sense out of your equation. I sat down for an hour trying to fix all the mistakes in it before I considered it pointless. There were too many. You didn't follow any specific basis or methodology to apply sny lemmas and axioms. You even had different curve fitting vectors mixed in it. Seriously dear, you can't expect anyone to solve the jigsaw puzzle of mixed methods you have. You literally did copy equations from different theories and shoved them into an equation. Thats simply not the right way to do it. Edited December 21, 2017 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 Ya, I know it doesn't there are no mistakes though. Here is Dot for this Newtonian one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) No each equation you used individually is already proven. You need to prove your integration of multiple equations into 1 equation is correct. Did you never learn Integration by parts? Edited December 21, 2017 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 Which was I knew this is a crap equation and not 3-D because it uses something Newtonian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 No each equation you used individually is already proven. You need to prove your integration of multiple equations into 1 equation is correct. Did you never learn Integration by parts? What the photons have rest energy which is them @ C. Physics proof, this is not math. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted December 21, 2017 Report Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) Physics is all math silly. Everything described in physics is defined by math including the very word energy. Energy: the ability to perform work. is a math expression. Hopefully you realize different forms of energy has different math expressions. Edited December 21, 2017 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.