/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10126153
Your logic does not follow at all and you are stupid.

>>10126148
A Minkowski diagram is a 2D box, and so is any Penrose diagram. How's that for relevance?

DETRACTORS BTFO
8===d ~~o ~~o :-(

>>10126108
What is your mechanism for three generations? Mine is that there are three classes of particles that live in three distinct state spaces, the three spaces comprising the three vector spaces of the rigged Hilbert space.

>>10126110
That's because I did use the actual definition. It's right there in the paper, and even as a pic in the thread. The word "diverges" encompasses all of that nuance you cited.

>>10126102
That was the main result of one of my papers. The title of it was:
>Derivation of the Fine Structure Constant
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1208.0076

Have you ever found an operator like that? I built my operator on a foundational system of QM: the 2D box. If you can come up with such an operator, please let me know which common physical application motivated the construction.

In this later paper :
>Tempus Edax Rerum
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1209.0010
the main result was that Einstein's equation falls out of the same framework the FSC fell out of. Have you gotten GR and FSC out of the same simple framework? If so, please state which common physical application you used to derive your framework.

>>10126098
I sure did. You're right.

>>10126093
That's a good question but it is not the result reported in that paper. The result was that that eigenvalue is equal to the FSC to with 0.4%. Do you dispute the result?

>if you can't do everything then what you did is nothing

t. guy whose theory had already been polished for 80 years before he even started college

>>10126085
>If you can't do everything then what you did is nothing
I predicted from first principles the structure of the standard model of particle physics. To your question, I have not invested much time in QFT yet as I am still filling the gaps in the foundations on which the unsound of house of QFT with its infinite vacuum energy density is built. My research is in the foundations of physics and your question, "What about this thing from the 1970s when you're working on the 1920s?," is stupid and you know it.

>>10126079
I do believe it. If you don't, please cite something irreproducible. Pic related, are you unable to reproduce the three most important dimansionless constants of physics within this one simple framework that I developed. If you think it's incidental that these three dimensionless constants arose in my model, then please provide another model that incidentally does the same thing so you can demonstrate the non-uniqueness.

>>10126073
Please give an example of how numbers of the form x~137 could be separated from numerology or could be anything other than pure numerology

>>10126069
I did consider it and I was able to rule out that possibility because all of my results are 100% reproducible.

>>10126064
Are you disputing that
2 pi + (Phi pi)^3 ~ 137?

Or do you dispute that this is within 0.4% of the currently accepted value?

Or do you dispute that there aren't multiple of assumptions which go into the "determination of the FSC to 10 sig figs?"

>>10126062
If you're the one saying "this is wrong" without giving the answer you think is right then be assured, between you and I, it is you who is the faggot.

>>10126058
So... you're saying it's totally equivalent to the definition I used:
>>10126048

>>10126050
What is the correct answer then, faggot?

>>10126045
I have had so many indisputable discoveries
>http://www.vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker
that got ignored in my physics research that I'm not really motivated to do the rigorous slogging of the rudimentary mathematical tedium of formality just to make more contributions that will ignored by the mathematicians instead of the physicists. The next book I open will probably be a QFT book but since I have already done so much lately I am in the phase "wait and think" which is in between my phases of "write papers about new discoveries." However, if the mathematicians embrace me where the physicists have rejected me, I would have to reevaluate based on new information. Also, studying for more than a couple hours a day, even when I am in study mode, is not realistic for me. The brain fluid runs out.

>>10126013
probably not. what is it? i'll tell you if I'm familiar with it. I thought it was pic

>>10126001
no

>>10125974
yup

>>10125945
It's pretty sad but I'm not bragging. I'm here to burn time until I feel sleepy because I have nothing better to do.

>>10125868
i see what you did there and I like it

>>10125861
also, how did Riemann choose to continue the domain of the Dirichlet function?