PervPhysProf

47 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Edgar? Is that you?

I take that as a yes. Anyhow what I mean is mathematically when you take Gauss' arithmetic you end up with 2 dimensions and then you cross it with a third being time. Skipping the true geometry. 

That's why we get these TVs and computers instead of it being material.

Lorentz, Gauss, & Co lied originally and the likes of Feynman followed suite. You see the curve was actually represented as a cube, based on cubicals, not sphericals, before the 4th dimension modelled it.

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you clarify and add a source? It is not obvious how this relates to the question in OP; "want to understand how Lorentz Transformations work". I do not posses the required knowledge regarding "negative time in higher dimensional analysis" and google dd not help within the limited amount of time I had available.

That's the real trick isn't it. Having all the hacks

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is well supported by existing evidence. Why you're proud of it is still a mystery though.

The math is ill-applied

A distraction from what we really enjoy.

To make us responsible for problems we did not cause in the first place.

Just now, Curious layman said:

There can only be one what?

1 "^", ya know, as opposed to a "v"

Also, there's a need to get hooked on a thing before-hand. Then it's just on repeat, automatic, effortless.

The way it should have been to begin with, the way each "preferee" prefers it, so to speak.

You're taking my individual preference and inferring that's the way I think it should be, or that's the way it aughta be in my world. Well duh. So what's wrong with splitting worlds? Why hasn't that already happened?

Why are there deformed people? Why are there starving people? Why is there war? It's troll tactic.

In essence the problem is why do we care so much about a person's individual preferences??

This can be mistaken as leaving it to popular opinion but my sentiments are quite the opposite of popular opinion, I think we need to make it a more individualized world using the technology. Ah, but that's problem, ya'll don't know the science like I do. Or the existential nature of how the spacetime really operates and what we're really made of. I don't just aptly give that away without getting a taste of that which I prefer to devour.

3 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Sorry but that's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time.

Personal preference is all that matters, you simply omit where mine is based or the part of the reply in which it's explained. And want to change it.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please elaborate. I’m not following the nature of your criticism. If my point was in any way unclear or seemingly contradictory to you, please specify exactly where so I may clarify it for you. 

Well you snipped my explanation. Any questions on my aforementioned sentiments?

On 6/16/2019 at 11:02 AM, StarKnight said:

Would it be theoretically possible to construct an algorithm that when provided with sufficient data, could predict the future with reasonable accuracy based on trends and pattern prediction? For example, if you created an algorithm that predicts where and when an earthquake is likely to happen up to a year in advance, then provided it with all the available information on earthquakes and plate tectonics and so on.

Only I know that process

I suspect after Beethoven went deaf he might have taken Newton's work and came to the same conclusions. How else could his symphonies arouse emotions better than any other Classical Composer unless he could predict which notes would have the highest overall affect mathematically? After-all he would have had to of either remembered the notes before he went deaf, when he wasn't even a well-liked composer, or he was somehow able to know what notes would go together to cause an effect similar to how the Ancient Egyptians used a Nilometer to treat the rise and fall or the Nile during the flood season. This allowed them to predict which crops would be most successful in the coming harvest.

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

You'd get less pushback on your argument if you instead said our ability to recognize attributes and classify them into discriminate groups is innate. 

That is obviously true, and we do it all of the time... this is food or not food... this is ouch or not ouch... this is warm or this is cool... even this is lighter or this is darker in color. Likewise, you could equally argue that tribalism is somewhat innate and discuss how we tend naturally to classify individuals into categories like us and them. All of those positions are supportable because they're accurate.

However, racism is not innate and you go too far suggesting it is. This is why people claim otherwise. Those claims should not be beyond you.

We aren't born hating others based on arbitrary social categories like race, especially since race as a category is not even rooted in biology. That's taught. It's learned. We can avoid teaching it. We can help people unlearn it, but only if we identify it accurately and talk about it for what it truly is.

 

You write one thing and then post the opposite.

Why mix? Mixing is what causes the hate.

On both sides.

There can only be one.

To mix is to imply either art is imperfect being its own color.

You have to account for length contraction by finding variable(sub(2-n)) and how their coordinates evolve based on t=n that's 4d calc

Since t=n+1 always in 4d (as opposed to  negative time in higher dimensional analyses) time dilates because length gets into a lower +/-(x)/n for the (x) value each time

..

At least until it gets too small.

Issue is standard model does that for larger volumes like cubes in flat space when Darron Arronfsky's Pi: Faith Chaos Novelization clearly shows nature as a sphere.

Cone centered, the concentric curve for the in-between variables

In essence, we're being trolled by a superior intellect. And by we I mean those who cant think like __.

We dare not speak its name or reveal it's TRUE nature.

I think all of you are missing the real root of the problem here.

It's as if we were born into a world that likes to toy with us for fun, trying to fit cubes into spherical spaces it doesn't work and nature knew that to begin with.

Or trying to fit circles into squares. Sphere<Cube, Circle>Square. That's in regards to volume, area - RESPECTIVELY. Sequentially.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Trying to get better information disseminated in the thread. You were mistaken, and I pointed it out.

Great!

The issue is to mix. As opposed to allowing one man to have all of his creed as females belonging to him and separating the colonies based on designated appearance. All these problems arise when you have more than one man and mix several different types of ants, like the Xenomorph Versus the Red Hive in comics, it doesn't work out and two Queens are always at each others throats. Then on top of that you have segregation of genders in this society, instead of a bunch of Blue Lagoons you have a Navy that separates the genders into a miserable fighting force that fights harder because of their forced same-gender melancholy. God gave us genitals, and then you have Heavens Gate and the relocation of all members of the Black Panther that aren't the Emperor nor his son the Prince being mixed with whites who have their own cuck weirdness as a psychostimulant for violence stemming from Great Britain. It's all quite fucked you see, why not separate the ethnicity and to each man their own ethnic female. Black kids to black man, white kids to white man??? Problem solved, no more violence. You see with nanotech we can do these things, we can make it so that all the individuals can inhabit one vessel while have their females as a proxy. At least that's my paradise lost.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

No, not that either.

Protons have two up quarks and a down. Neutrons have two downs and an up. Nuclei can have many protons, and most kinds of nuclei have even more neutrons.

 

Yeah, 1 proton & 1 neutron: 3-2; 2 protons and 1 neutron 5-4

However that is a matter of semantics.

What's your point?

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Equating up quarks with matter is incorrect

Atomic nuclei either have two up quarks and one down quark, 3 up and 3 down, or 5 up and 4 down

Sometimes atomic nuclei have many protons and neutrons 

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

All quarks are considered matter

Nice edit, slick

7 hours ago, Eise said:

No. Link.

And I don't know if you were just ironic, but to be sure: an electron in an atom is completely characterized by 4 quantum numbers. Introducing a new one therefore would be the fifth. No idea why thethinkertank came at the idea that it would be the third number. I assume because he thinks a lot, but does not know a lot...

There's no basis for a 5th quantum number in the standard model just because there's more up quarks (matter) than antimatter says nothing about the electrons which are negatively charged over positrons. 

However I might know the orchestral arrangement, not a proof I'm willing to spill at a place like this

On 6/17/2019 at 2:02 AM, Eise said:

Yes, there are several quantum numbers, but they do not explain energy states, they are firmly underpinned by QED. 

I don't think an electron has a degree of freedom to become a positron. That just makes no sense. And as a positron impossibly can be part of a normal matter atom because it has a positive charge (not even talking about its immanent annihilation by an electron), and is exactly the opposite in its properties in every aspect except its mass from the electron, I think the Pauli principle does not even apply.

You are definitely overthinking this.

No. First, as implied by the above, if this 'new quantum number'  does not roll out of QED, it has no physical meaning. Second, I have no idea why your idea would explain the imbalance in matter and antimatter.

Third? It would be the fifth.

Is that Beethoven in your avatar? Ludwig Van Beethoven!?

Overcumbersome method. What are the benefits? Neutrinonic computing?

I think they are just gluons freed from the nucleus. Like electrons and positrons being preons freed from the nucleus. 

21 hours ago, Pablo2019 said:

that would have a two-valuedness with the purpose of "describing" one more degree of freedom, where, for example, an electron and a positron can't have the same set of quantum numbers and as a result these particles are observed as a matter/antimatter pair. 

The charges are interwoven, 

"Following the discovery of quarks inside protons and neutrons in the early 1970s, some theorists suggested quarks might themselves contain particles known as 'preons'"

Of course, preons are Planck scale charges. This is not a part of the standard model, Preons were dismissed.

 two things

First is that the two are both descriptive of particle pair production and particle wave duality however their processes are not mutually implicit. Put simply, one says says about the other but their axioms are not proven to be interrelated, although it would seem that such is the case.

Secondly, it could also be true that there are two particles that do indeed coexist in a localized space, but that would imply that there's information transfer which there's something called the bell inequality showing that if this were case yet in fact n fact there's actually evidence that no two particle pairs are behaving quite the same the

There is a Planck sensitive mechanical dynamic (QCD) in which matter waves and those that come out of your schools are only apt at representing behavior in gravito/EM about the width of quarks..

You dont build from tier 5 or 60, you build from tier one. To particles to atoms to molecules, etc

Hello everyone. Well please allow me to introduce myself. I am a known mathematicians for years and I like playing with concepts regarding "modern" physics and their tautologies. Right now I am an young man with lots of ideas..but little laurels.