Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Again it's not a buzzword. You need it to express torsion, I literally gave you it's definition it's not a buzzword

Hi Superpolymath, you know you are perma-banned right? I am sure ocean will be around to reban you soon. You know you even had me fooled for awhile i honestly thought you were just some random dude that joined.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi Superpolymath, you know you are perma-banned right? I am sure ocean will be around to reban you soon. You know you even had me fooled for awhile i honestly thought you were just some random dude th

8 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

You really weren't. You started talking about branes and inflation. Take a walk. A long one and stop spamming my thread. You're a poster who used to do exactly the same thing before, just under a different guise. You have no knowledge worth participating here. 

Brane as in geometry not physics you jabroni. Oh yeah? And you started talking about Torsion, a 3D phenomenon, in the quantum realm, apples and oranges

No knowledge worth participating here? I have enough math ammo to drop an elephant

 

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Hi Superpolymath, you know you are perma-banned right? I am sure ocean will be around to reban you soon. You know you even had me fooled for awhile i honestly thought you were just some random dude that joined.

What happened to your request for

download.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Branes are commonly known artifacts of string theory 

Here is a better definition

"A brane is more than just a manifold, it is a physical object. You can think of it as a higher dimensional version of a particle. It can carry a charge, it can couple to gauge fields, it can decay, etc. We tend to study a brane in the same way we study a string. We study strings in terms of their worldsheet, we study branes in terms of their worldvolume. The worldvolume of a brane is a manifold."

As was stated before torsion occurs at a point where your graphs stop being planar. No more 2-D worldsheets when Torsion is involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're preaching to the wrong person in the wrong thread. If this was about branes within the description of extended objects in higher dimensional space you'd know about it, which it isn't. Which you should know but you don't. So stop the spamming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I don't believe in any dimensions theoretically larger than seven, ok? It's at odds with string theory, because that stringent result came from bivector theory for gravity, which this thread is not about. The physical explanation of the math, is how torsion may play a role in the spin and orbit of an electron round a physically spinning nucleus. It's that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Again, I don't believe in any dimensions theoretically larger than seven, ok? It's at odds with string theory, because that stringent result came from bivector theory for gravity, which this thread is not about. The physical explanation of the math, is how torsion may play a role in the spin and orbit of an electron round a physically spinning nucleus. It's that simple.

Only in most theories the electrons orbitals are determined by probability

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying your on the wrong track, but you need to decide on whether you want to go with abelian group (which I strongly suggest you lookup) or eigenfunction (you're using but I discourage you from using when Torsion is involved or particles actually can commutate [particle doesn't jump but transfers between separate planes]) basically for what it seems you're trying to express. You don't have to limit it to those two those are just suggestions based on what you're showing. It's incorporating torsion through, you're mismatching equations from different geodesic definitions

You have too many influences, not enough raw, uninfluenced geometry that those influences have. Everything I do regarding new physics had zero outside influences mathematically speaking but unlike you had a large dataset covering an enormous geometric algorithm (computable or automated)

Or not, whatever you incorporate into a quantum behavior of your own interpretation, as a general rule, you need to go behind the scenes of what's ggvien on a definition in a page of a physics hook and actually deconstruct and reverse engineer a genuine proof, and then find out how to do it or something similar to it in a way that it behaves totally uniquely. That's all I'm trying to say, that's what I do. I don't think your ready to use the term dimensional analysis IMHO

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't need to look up anything lol I know fine well what an abelian group is, I know more than most the delicacies say, of complex and real fields. There's no need to talk about such things, my theory is self consistent, it doesn't need to have additive ideas unless it's absolutely relevant. 

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

By the way, what do you think dimensional analysis is, because I've corrected physicists in the past in such things. Telling me I might not be equipped for such things is like telling a horse is not capable of making a long jump. Don't underestimate my capabilities boy, I am just not as wild to think the half baked things you do.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There! I've even updated the Op for you! I've now given adln exact equality. If Jv is twice the charge, or charge squared, ie. e^2 then we are left with the following exact equality,

B x v ~ (1/2mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) 

 

It's approximate because in exact units, Jv is really twice the value of e. An exact equality would be 

 

B x v = (e/2mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) 

This is because, Jv is really the same thing as e^2 So we have a remaining charge in the numerator. If you can find three more exact equalities, then I'll concede you know at least something about dimensional analysis!

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...