/sci/ - Science & Math

Also, all the people who saw me studying physics and then decided I can't be the savior of all mankind must have thought the savior was going to come with a better way to smoke crack and suck dick or something because I can't think of anything other than a new technological revolution which would allow for a drastic saving action. These fucking pieces of shit must have thought I was supposed to me magical or something if I was going to save the world with a new way for a man to suck another man's dick, which is basically what they must have been expecting from the Messiah if my research program into the fundamental workings of the universe didn't seem promising to them.

>>12167741
I tried making a Twitter one time with the pseudonym Fred Jenkins. Then they made a movie with Fred Jenkins in it to point out how absolutely fucking retarded it would be to think I'm fooling anyone with anything I could do. My strength is not in my ability to deceive, but rather in desire to tell the truth. So, I think if I tried to publish under a pseudonym, I would get the same fake rejection predicate.

My suspicion is that Israeli and Kikeberg created the Millennium Prize shortly after I began publishing so as to promote those who would steal my research and/or conspire to cover it up. Hairer is one such example, and Polchinski is another such obvious example. The whole thing about "Complementarity vs Firewalls" was about hiding my research (should this complement the mainstream research or be hidden from it?), and Polchinski was a primary architect of that nonsense debate about the consequences or four unmotivated assumptions strung together. I can see how these two worked against me, but likely outside of field of vision, everyone who has gotten an Breakthrough Prize (not Millennium, oops) is onboard with telling the lie that my research is garbage.

>>12100750
Dude, actually I solved RH and did most of my physics stuff while my life was still going well before I was homeless, but then since capitalism says all of that is worthless, I became homeless afterwards due to money running out.

>>12067495
>30 Tooker Papers
>LOG (from the log meme, HTML only)
>Exide Docs
I see these uploads have disappeared. I made new uploads:

30 Tooker Papers
https://gofile.io/d/X2uKgx

LOG (from the log meme, HTML only)
https://gofile.io/d/FqbLXa

Exide Docs
https://gofile.io/d/TmnC21

I solved the Riemann hypothesis in March 2017, before I became homeless. They still left me out on the street like a piece of trash in the gutter. Now they say, "Weh weh weh, what is your problem?"

>>11843872
>Since a transexual moderator decided to ban me for "ironic shitposting" (although all the posts in the board are absolutely shit quality, what makes me believe it was based solely on having different opinions than the formerly mentioned transexual)

Also, FRBs are black hole lightning.

>>11103920
I have no idea, but in my theory a gluon is a worldsheet of a certain variety. Did you read my paper and see how I showed that the worldsheets admitted by the unit cell of my cosmological model are exactly int he permutations of the standard model of particles?

>>11103863
>This site obviously harms him
Since my enemies are below me in the grand scheme of things, they cannot kill me outright. However, since the priests in my own temple hate me, they allow those who are on shit tier compared to me to try to make me miserable enough that I will eventually kill myself. I will never do that though, and I will hold onto my desire for vengeance forever, or at least until I can wring it from the bones of my enemies' children.

>>11103937
So then you do agree that the physics of states in Hilbert space is completely different than that of states which can only exist in rigged Hilbert space? Do you recant you previous statement:
>nothing different in the physics based on whether one uses a Gelfand triple or just a plain old Hilbert space.

>>10960826
>USA
The Great Satan.

>>10946775
>I agree with you that it doesn't make the theory better for application with calculations, but it does make the theory better in principle because it is better descriptive of the actual mechanisms involved.

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT TOTALLY LAYS OUT ALL THE DETAILS FOR SOME PERSON WELL-VERSED IN THE MATTER TO MAKE A NEW CALCULATION BASED ON THE NEW MECHANISM!!!!

The problem is, one of many problems really, is that the theories of QM and GR we have today have 100 years of polish on them by now, so any new theory is going to look QUITE different when it first appears. Indeed, it is total bullshit to say, "You have to do everything from initial ideation to final polishing all by yourself or else you get no credit at all, and you cannot ever possibly get credit for simply suggesting an idea by which some other person might create a polished science morsel."

Here is the analogy I like to make about making calculations vs. describing mechanisms. In software engineering, development tasks are divided between software architects an the code monkeys that implement the architect's solutions. Not only does the architect get paid a lot more than the code monkey, there is no requirement for the architect to even know the syntax of the language in which the code monkey will implement his architectural plan. In physics, making calculations is rarely anything more than plugging some energy function into a numerical integration software module. There are literally tens of thousands of world-class experts out there who do this professionally but have no ideas for any new functions to type. Using a keyboard to type an energy function into your computer is not the bottleneck in theoretical physics. The bottleneck is that, despite all these geniuses trying, none of them can come up with an idea for a new energy function. That's why software architects get paid more than software engineers: the architects do the hard part and then engineers do the tedious part.