/sci/ - Science & Math

Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
https://vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
https://vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

>>11908121
>Quanta and quantum fields do not necessarily have mass-energy.
This is stupid. The "m" in the Klien-Gordon free field operator
[math] \widehat{KG} =-\big( \partial^2+m^2) \big)[/math]
is a gravitational mass by the axiom that all inertial masses are gravitational.

>>11908448
The graviton is the hypothetical quantum of the gravitational force. Although Newton found a non-relativistic approximation to gravity as a classical force, Einstein showed real gravity is geometry, not classical force. I think the reason no one has ever observed the quantum of the gravitational force, "a graviton," is because there is no gravitational force. Gravity is 4D Lorentzian geometry, not a force. Then it follows that there is not a quantum of a force that doesn't exist.

>>11852362
Didn't Gauss write the formula for that?

>>11645410
>eternalized by their formulas

RH is false.

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 (PDF)
>https://ibb [doot] co/album/jNypiv (JPG)

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

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

>>11167734
My guess is that it's that electrons have to go through the voltmeter, and the motion of electrons is given by an action principle which minimizes the energy needed to divert the electrons onto the parallel circuit with the voltmeter in it.

In physics, regardless of the question, the answer is usually, "It happens that way because that is the way that minimizes the energy."

Physics math is better than math math. In math math, when someone starts being a little bitch you pretty much have to say, "Ok, yeah. You're right," but in physics math you can laugh at them and tell them to fuck off.

>>11100370

Assume
1+1=X and X!=2

By the additive inverse property of the number one, we may derive the relationship
1 = X - 1

There is no non-2 number X which satisfies this equation. Therefore, we have proven that 1 + 1 = 2 by contradiction.

Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

WHO WANTS TO GUESS WHAT DEFINITION OF REAL NUMBERS DEDEKIND LEARNED DURING HIS OWN INTRODUCTION TO ANALYSIS? HOW DID DEDEKIND BECOME FASCINATED WITH CUTS? (Hint: it's pic related)

>>10177044
yes

Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082

>Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082

Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082

Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082

>Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082

Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082

Which equation is best?
Whose research is best?
Who is the best researcher?
>Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082