joigus

I always try to look at as many basic issues as possible before I get involved with the finer details. The finer details don't require as much attention if the basic issues haven't been properly dealt with. Once they have... well, let's have it. Polar coordinates are particularly useful when you have to deal with problems that are spherically symmetric. If I had to deal with the EM field created by a straight wire, I wouln't use spherical coordinates. I would use cilindrical coordinates instead. Why? Because the charge-current distribution of a straight wire has cilindrical symmetry, not spherical one.

r, the way you have defined it, should be dimensionless (provided cosine is cosine, of course). By dimensional analysis alone, provided r is some kind of distance parameter and cosine is... well... cosine, your Bas forces the use of some characteristic (fundamental distance, \( \cos\left(r\theta/r_{0}\right) \). \( r_0 \) would play the role of that fundamental distance. This is not necessarily a crazy idea, but you would have to justify it by drawing different consequences, etc. One immediate one I can think of would be renormalisation, the cosmological constant, etc.

That's actually what I first thought, because I'd noticed that glitch long ago, but I tried forcing plain text and it still produced a compilation error... 🤷‍♂️ I do know LaTeX gives you problem if you don't nest your braces {} for some sequences. So who knows...

Golden rule comes from a fundamental awareness of understanding reciprocity. A mandate from heaven, I'm sure, is the poor-man's version of ethics.

My point on this thread was made. Anyway, I didn't say schyzotypism is limited to religions. I said the occurrence of religious visionaries through history are likely to be related to schyzotipism, and the fact that genes related to them might not have disappeared from the gene pool on account of those genes not being detrimental, but quite the contrary, is some special cases. As to reductionism of ilness, don't oversimplify what an ilness probably is in many cases, and more in particular for mental ilness: A consequence of many factors, many of them environmental. It's not like a line of code in the software telling the hardware to do something. I did say that.

Exactly. That too. But a scalar relation makes it so obvious, as scalar = same in all reference frames/coordinate systems. I also had problems with cos(r·theta) if r is the polar distance and cos is the trigonometric cosine function we know and love, but one thing at a time...

Your equations do not display correctly. Please, review your LateX code. Give it a try on The Sandbox, eg, Often you can run your code piecewise there and usually you can isolate the part of the code that's making it fail to compile. Nevertheless, I see matters of basic concepts/principle etc that tell me your idea cannot possibly be right. Introducing a particular set of coordinates to tag space-time points should not affect any calculations in any sensible physical theory. When, eg, you write the Lagrangian piece, \[ \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)_{\text{Bas}}(\partial^{\mu}\phi)_{\text{Bas}}-V_{\text{Bas}}(\phi) \] functions such as a scalar field or a Higgs-like potential should not depend on the particular coordinate choice, on account of both being scalars. Sub-indexing "Bas" meaning "evaluated in my coordinates" should not make any difference. So nothing you propose seems very sound as per the formalism. I hope that's clear and was helpful.

Theories of everything are ten a penny lately. When you look more closely, they don't even attempt to do what the term TOE actually means. Namely, explaining the whole spectrum of bosons and fermions, as Mordred pointed out. In this case, they want to supersede a theory of the hydrogen atom that was considered obsolete already in the 1920s!!!

Oh, no! Battle of the wits in full swing. I'm out, lest I get even more confused!

Here: (my emphasis.) There. It takes two neurons to understand this. Either you are an 11-year-old, and not a particularly brilliant one, or you are being disingenuous on purpose, and therefore intellectually dishonest.

Must be king James English...

It's not. It doesn't. Do ask questions.

This strikes me as blatantly inconsistent with what you said in other thread. How did you put it? Oh, yes... In every atom of one thought the whole universe is contained. Or something like that. Please, make up your mind.

What leads people to the particular god they worship is the cultural environment in which they grow up. And that is an empirical fact. Or do you know of any person who grows up in Yemen, spends all their life there, and somehow ends up worshipping Ganesha, or the Christian god?

No. You ask questions. You seem to have dropped the attitude. Now drop the nonsense. Many good people here, they could teach you a lot. Take my advice. Bye.

Still not making any sense. Are you fielding questions now? What is this, a press conference?

This doesn't make any sense.

You've been explained, quite correctly I think, what a theory is as we understand it in science. Can you make a prediction? Or explain the workings of thermal engines? After all yours is a theory of everything.

Clever. But, the way in which you sub-divide the side of the square is divergent, as, \[ \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{5} + \cdots \] is the well-known harmonic series which is divergent. So, \[ \left( 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{5} + \cdots \right)^{2} \] cannot possibly give you a convergent series, I would say. This is compounded with the fact that what you have on your RHS is an infinite series of infinite series. Sometimes it happens that a divergent series can be useful because it can be regularised, or made sense of in some clever way. Euler was a master at this. Have you tried to discuss it with a professional mathematician? By the way, that would be an identity, not an equation. Otherwise, what is the unknown to solve for?

You need the mathematical counterpart to your... erm... theory. A fitting name for it would be "calculus of platitudes".

You're going all over the place with this. Young's experiment works better with monochromatic light. And trajectories split at the double-slit piece, not in the observer's eye. Newton's experiment of splitting light by their frequencies (energy of the photons) can be explained classically and does not demonstrate quantum mechanics. And, btw, I don't know of any single case in the history of science when a paradox was solved by throwing another paradox at it. Do you?

Perhaps Phi is referring to a more disruptive behaviour. Something that really interferes with the flow of the discussion. Not, eg, just not saying 'hello' properly or paying your respects, or other pleasantries. Well at least those are the only red points I myself have come to think are appropriate.

On the other hand, some of us have been quite stirred by @Markus Hanke's comments on non-linearity's potential to generate unexpected behaviours, when boundary conditions, global properties, etc may play a part in bringing about those. I came a bit late to those comments and they've sent me into a whirlpool of thinking about how unusual it is for someone who's been trained in solving differential equations to extend these techniques to include: 1) The topological nature of the manifold itself in which one is solving the PDE. 2) The seemingly open-ended nature of how to deal with the sources and how simplification of those in order to make them tractable might make it impossible to capture properties of realistic solutions when the context is non-linear. It's rarely the case in general mathematical courses in ODE or PDE (linear or non-linear) that part of the problem itself is phrased like, Oh, I almost forgot, as part of your assignment, you have to guess whether the problem is in R4 or maybe in some non-trivial topological space. That makes the problem insanely hard to solve.

Yes, exactly. But it's beside the point anyway. Thank you again. I would never say, ie, a proton running away from me is being redshifted!

Thank you, Mordred. That v is the cosmological Hubble flow. What I was referring to was the peculiar velocity. dr/dt-H0d https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity I just wanted to engage @DanMP. I wanted them to explain in more detail what they mean exactly by "neutrinos slowing down". Are they slowing down wrt the galactic rest frame? Ie, is their peculiar velocity slowing down? I don't think it is. I said something incorrect, btw, I said "red-shift" which is applied to light, not to neutrinos, although they do have a De Broglie wavelenth. I suppose your comments on momentum previously referred to something like that?: