/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12167618
I have an anecdote, or an allegory, about inaccessible jargon. In software development, large development tasks are divided among software architects and software developers, which is to say they are divided between the big picture guys and the code monkeys. Here is the point I will make with this analogy: Architects get paid a lot more than coders, and it is not even required for the architect to know they syntax of the language in which the architecture will be implemented. Architects are relatively senior, and coders are relatively junior. Architects are often expert coders, but this is not required at all for architecture piece and is more a feature of them having matriculate through the coder tier before being promoted into the architecture tier. In IT, everyone knows that the architecture piece is the main thing and that once architecture is in place, anyone can do the implementation. In math and physics, however, there is a persistent (and fraudulent) zeitgeist such that the syntax of a given language is actually the important piece, and the architecture piece is simply thing that any retard could have done. That's not right. The truth is: the bottleneck to forward progress is always coming up with new ideas. It does irritate me GREATLY, it vexes me even, when people try to place the work of the code monkey on a higher pedestal than the work of the architect. Everyone in the know knows that this is not how it really is, but for outsiders they are able to trick them into thinking that, for instance, someone actually creating a website is a bigger accomplishment than someone having the idea to connect computers over networks.

Pic related: Weinstein also pretty much stole my theory calling "Geometric Unity" just a few months after I wrote >>12167680 Geometric Cosmology.

I think she deleted my comments when I posted it on her blog. Maybe that was just Lubos. From what she writes, I can tell she already saw it.

Eric Weinstein is a turd. I say that because he was talking about my idea as if it was his own. Gary doesn't talk about it like that.

Sometimes I get excited and don't proof read at all.

In 2011, I said the positive-definiteness theorem for the 0-component of the universe's 4-momentum means that conservation of 4-momentum must require that two different universes left the big bang in different directions through time. There's a theorem, the ADM theorem, and it says that the 0-component of the momentum of the whole universe is a positive number in the convention where binding energy is negative. So, in the sense that the universe has vanishing in 3-momentum due to all left/down/forward momentum being exactly offset by right/up/backward momentum, meaning that the big bang conserved 3-momentum, a universe moving the other direction through time is required for the big bang to respect conservation of 4-momentum. My idea isn't radical. Others' ideas that the big bang doesn't conserve momentum are radical. My idea is that the big bang is normal, not special, and I built a whole model with negative time in it so that a big bang could conserve 4-momentum. (Actually, I question the existence of the big bang at all but positing such an event motivates my argument for negative time.) In 2012, a quantum optics guy, Rubino, said, "If there's negative time then there ought to be negative frequency since frequency is inverse time." He did a Fourier analysis and didn't throw away the negative frequency modes as they usually do in quantum optics, and then he looked for them in his experiment. He found them.

That should read much better :)

summary

>>11898647
>Quits career of being a professor to shitpost
pic exposes the nature of the change of direction in his career.

Not a pseud or a genius. More like a bad guy.

>>11885895
30 Tooker Papers
https://gofile.io/d/IOOaMw

I, too, have written a short summary paper.

>>11863309
>eric weinstein.
My enemy going back to 2013, at least. Pic related.

>>11819048
My model predicts that there is no such thing as a spin-0 force carrier. The mainstream QFT disagrees with me. It says there are spin-0 force carriers. My theory and the mainstream theory are equally falsifiable, and they can't both be right.

>>11796209

>>11598258
>the limits of existing mathematics"
[math] \mathbb{R}=(-\infty,\infty) [/math]

IMO, existing mathematics requires that R fills the connected interval. If every x in R is less than some natural number, an idea which is trendy in pop math, then there can be no x at the midpoint of (0,inf). If there is no x at the midpoint, then R does not fill the interval and it is not connected. This is a contradiction so one may not rigorously take two axioms: the typeset one above and the other one about natural numbers.

The two axioms are contradictory but math is being a little bitch right now by acting like they aren't. This is a big problem right now in "existing mathematics."

>>11598357
I call myself the most successful living physicist unless I may have mispoken, but i am also what you wrote.

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

>>11571009
>posted his Optimum Theory on Weinsteins twitter
I got blocked by EricRWeinstein after I posted my papers with calls for him to admit that my model had motivated the thing he discussed with the media as Geometric Unity.

Since when does Weinstein have an equation? I saw plenty of Lisi's. I never saw one of Weinstein's.

30 Tooker Papers
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=08673880568874767256