/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12385401
The version with Mr Clean is better

The Riemann hypothesis is false. The waiver Clay gave to Perelman for publishing on non-qualifying arXiv is the (((exact))) same waiver they'd have to give to me for publishing on non-qualifying viXra.

SHORT: Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236

MEDIUM: Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

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

OLD: On The Riemann Zeta Function
https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

>>11885923
Are you the one who says that spin-1 would be a problem for the W and Z masses? You'd think the most prestigious organization in particle physics would know if it was true. Or does your argument rely on an assumed gamma-gamma final state? I forget because I don't really take you seriously. If not dependent on gg final state, you should send PDG a sad anime girl with a note explaining why it can't have spin-1. That way in 2021 they won't be saying all this stuff about how it can have spin-1 when you remedy their ignorance with the memes you always drop in my threads.

>do you have a real argument?
Although the reliance on the LY theorem is not framed as an assumption in the PDG publication, it is an assumption. Theorems in physics don't get proven true. With cause, we assume they are true until they are disproven. If the particle has spin-1, and the final state is gamma-gamma, then the theorem is wrong. This is not really an argument.

>>11819588
It's the same people who delete my threads here that delete my submissions to arXiv.

Eq (6): Suppose there's a wavefunction psi.

>>11309900
This new paper is much better, and I do an independent disproof based on the properties of holomorphic functions
>Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1912.0030
>alt mirror
>http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05487512629102173334


Long before I became homeless, they knew I was right about the particle not being the Higgs at all, but instead having spin-1. Long before I became homeless, they already knew the negative frequency optical mode I predicted in 2011 produces free-energy amplified photons. The fact about the the USA is that they thought it would be better for them to let me rot in the gutter that to give me even a low paying job in which I might demonstrate my absolute intellectual dominion. So they put me in the mental midget group where I was doomed to fail at the task of being a retarded moron. In that mental midget scientology group, they had people write reports about me, "He's too stupid to even be a complete fucking retard. No matter how much we try, we absolutely cannot get him to give a fuck about shit that absolutely does not matter, and he just keeps thinking that satanism is a stupid thing to waste time and effort on compared to the math ans physics that he so dearly loves, and where he would have easily found vast professional success if we didn't bribe people to hide his 2009 paper and then expel him from university wrongfully without a PhD in 2011."

I read MathAnon's paper, and I think it is really superbly written, and you will probably see more of that level of explanations in my future papers' prose because I really like the flow of the logical development very much. I certainly never would have thought to split that argument across so many sections, but it works very well.

As soon as I got to page 11, however, I became slightly confused. It seemed like we stopped explaining the steps so clearly. To avoid me having to replicate the whole thing, can you tell me: If Eq (65) cannot be satisfied, then what was the workaround for this?

>>10996694
Ahhh... I see you felt the need to exalt yourself for having eaten of that tree in the middle of garden.

However, I would be wrong to totally state my thoughts in this matter. If you have seen that my enemy hated you, and you have seen that I loved you, and you still went to my enemy and avoided me, then that is not good, and that is not behavior I will want to promote. I am concerned.

is this true ?

>>10815522
infinity chan maybe. read a book about subject that is the most interesting for you

>>10741913
>Source

>>10741940
bless

>>10733821
and this, pic related, is unpublishable dog shit

I guess at most one false proposition should be of interest then

I recently achieved my fifth arXiv rejection, pic related

Thread about RH
Also, infidel thread: How many of them in one place will exceed the Chandrasekar limit?