/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10324514]

I have a scientific equation that I believe could win a Nobel Prize in Physics
Prize but I cannot nominate myself, who should I send it to, I am a complete layman please help me. I guess what I'm asking is how do I publish it, I don't know who to get it published by or how

[Anonymous No.10324522]

>>10324514
one equation isn't going to win you a Nobel without experimental evidence, don't worry

[Anonymous No.10324527]

>>10324514
Submit it to /sci/ and we’ll forward it for you.

[Anonymous No.10324532]

>>10324522
But I divided by zero, and the equation does not allow experimental evidence

[Anonymous No.10324548]

>>10324527
OK
In pre time there were no dimensions, this inherently means there there was infinitely in at least 3 dimensions. in such a way as conceptualised as a space, 0 dimensions manifests as a cube that is infinite on each edge. There is an infinite amount of nothing on the x y and z axis, and there is in fact one lot of nothing. Not two, not minus one, one lot of nothing. There was also likely no metaphysical data such as numbers that existed either unless they are retroactively shown to it which does not survive Occam's Razor. Thus to be able to create numbers or any sense of itself, something had to create a way to be able to observe it's entire self. Thus it measured from literally “The Middle Of Nowhere” infinitely on the x, y, and z plane (and the same way minus, and it took an amount of time to be able to do it, thus creating the four dimensions of space-time. It was all an equal infinite in every direction. As well as being a way to understand the beginning of time, this is a way to understand how to divide zero using 3D space. The equation in my mind equals 0(which in it's own way equals 1) divided by 8=8(octants). Which becomes 0=infinite cubed, which is one cube, which means 0=1

[Anonymous No.10324557]

>>10324522
this
theory is useless without experimental evidence
that's why the wheelchair meme scientist never won a nobel prize

[Anonymous No.10324565]

>>10324548
I dunno dude the numbers have an end paper seems clearer than this

[Anonymous No.10324570]

Publish it anonymously, being famous is super overrated. Science for the sake of science is what matters

[Anonymous No.10324591]

>>10324557
Do you have any to suggest? This should exist on it's own I would say

[Anonymous No.10324623]

>>10324532

[Anonymous No.10324653]

The second derivative of y = [x6−3x5−x4+(7x3ln(3x3)+x4ln(3x2))⋅6x2−13x2x2+2⋅xsin(csc(7x2))+12x2x3xx−7
is
((1764x18−2730x17)ln3(3x2)ln(3x3)+(4704x2x1x7+3+2x7+3ln4(x)+x2x1x7+3(2352x1x7+x2x7(−4032x10−1344x3))ln3(x)+x2x1x7+3(x2x7(864x17−768x10+96x3)+x1x7(672x7−672))ln2(x)+x2x1x7+3(x2x7(576x17+192x10)+x1x7(288x14−1104x7+48))ln(x)+x2x1x7+3(96x2x7+17+x1x7(240x14+96x7))+1638x18−2943x17−120x16−24x15)ln3(3x2)+(336x19−546x18)ln2(3x2)+(338x18−180x19)ln(3x2)+48x19−104x18)sin3(csc(7x2))+784x16ln3(3x2)cot2(7x2)csc2(7x2)sin2(csc(7x2))+((168x14ln3(3x2)cot(7x2)−784x16ln3(3x2)cot2(7x2))csc(7x2)−784x16ln3(3x2)csc3(7x2))cos(csc(7x2))sin(csc(7x2))+1568x16ln3(3x2)cot2(7x2)csc2(7x2)cos2(csc(7x2))2x13ln3(3x2)sin3(csc(7x2))


I spent the last 10 minutes screwing with a derivative calculator online instead of doing my data analysis homework. I feel like the guy who wrote that calculator should win something. Maybe not a Nobel prize, but something. (even though it couldnt take the third derivative. Apparently, the result is "too long" to be displayed.

[Anonymous No.10324658]

>>10324653
How do you make stuff show up as a formula on 4chan? like this? ``` y = [x6−3x5−x4+(7x3ln(3x3)+x4ln(3x2))⋅6x2−13x2x2+2⋅xsin(csc(7x2))+12x2x3xx−7```

```((1764x18−2730x17)ln3(3x2)ln(3x3)+(4704x2x1x7+3+2x7+3ln4(x)+x2x1x7+3(2352x1x7+x2x7(−4032x10−1344x3))ln3(x)+x2x1x7+3(x2x7(864x17−768x10+96x3)+x1x7(672x7−672))ln2(x)+x2x1x7+3(x2x7(576x17+192x10)+x1x7(288x14−1104x7+48))ln(x)+x2x1x7+3(96x2x7+17+x1x7(240x14+96x7))+1638x18−2943x17−120x16−24x15)ln3(3x2)+(336x19−546x18)ln2(3x2)+(338x18−180x19)ln(3x2)+48x19−104x18)sin3(csc(7x2))+784x16ln3(3x2)cot2(7x2)csc2(7x2)sin2(csc(7x2))+((168x14ln3(3x2)cot(7x2)−784x16ln3(3x2)cot2(7x2))csc(7x2)−784x16ln3(3x2)csc3(7x2))cos(csc(7x2))sin(csc(7x2))+1568x16ln3(3x2)cot2(7x2)csc2(7x2)cos2(csc(7x2))2x13ln3(3x2)sin3(csc(7x2))```

[Anonymous No.10324704]

>>10324658
>How do you make stuff show up as a formula on 4chan? like this?
>Proceeds to try and use reddit formatting
[math]
\mathbb{LMAO}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.10324717]

>>10324623
What the fuck is his tongue doing.
Why does it spook me so much?

[Anonymous No.10324733]

>>10324717
i think Ed's brain has developed a new method of laughing that only in 100+ years will humanity actually grasp. once they do, for sure you'll be rubbing your tongue against your top teeth while you laugh; basically it allows him to derive the mapping of quasi-Hopf algebras to perturbation M-theory vacua via monoddal categories mentally in seconds

[Anonymous No.10325186]

>>10324623
who is this?