If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am. I'm a brilliant math'matician - also something of a ham. I have tried for numerous degrees, in fact I've one of each; Of course that makes me eminently qualified to teach. I understand the subject matter thoroughly, it's true, And I can't see why it isn't all as obvious to you. Each lecture is a masterpiece, meticulously planned, Yet everybody tells me that I'm hard to understand, And I can't think why. My diagrams are models of true art, you must agree, And my handwriting is famous for its legibility. Take a word like mmmmmm (minimum) to choose a random word, For anyone to say he cannot read that, is absurd. The anecdotes I tell get more amusing every year, Though frankly, what they go to prove is sometimes less than clear, And all my explanations are quite lucid, I am sure, Yet everybody tells me that my lectures are obscure, And I can't think why. To generalize special relativity is as simple as can be, Just eliminate unnecessary assumptions like linearity, The consequences are equations for all dimensions I see – Physicists understanding physics is such a rarity. They need to study science from a mathematician like me. It's difficult to appreciate the intricacies of quantum parity, General covariance is easy to construct in special relativity. My derivation of spacetime is important, of that there is no doubt. All these formulas are trivial if you only think them out. Yet students tell me, "I have memorized the whole course through Ev'rything that you've written, but the problems I can't do." And I can't think why! He can't think why! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6it_kQeOnU http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
He also wrote one about Lobachevsky. "Plagiarize, plagiarize!/Let no one else's work evade your eyes!" I can't access the lyrics websites from this computer, but these are in about twelve different places.
Er, Eugene's modified the original with stuff like this: Of course we've been through this before. Eugene still doesn't understand relativity or even science for that matter (he's already admitted he thinks invisible pink unicorn theory is viable science). From a physical perspective, Eugene's non-linear transformation is not a symmetry of any known physical laws (except in a couple of trivial and uninteresting senses) and therefore simply has no physical significance. From a mathematical perspective it is (at best) inelegant and poorly motivated, especially compared with what some mathematicians have already done with relativity.
Oh shit . There is a layering . I don't know if it is infinite , but it does repeat in a weird way . Some day you will all see my paintings . I tried to explain it in my introducing to sci forum thread . It don't seem to make much sense and looks a lot like quackery . I will just say one thing . I measured space , time and motion for fucking 40 years and have a good pretty good understanding of Geometry and when I realized the painting I never seen anything like it . Maybe I just whacked out from repetition of numbering for 40 fucking years . That is possible . I don't think so , it is all just to fucking strange . The layering is what I am talking about . Like alternate universes except there not alternate universes they are part of the same universe . There just not in the normal peripheral view of human perception. It is were time is kept in check by the layering causing re-enforcement to the fields . I know sounds like I am a Quack . Fuck Me anyway. The hidden language lives in this peripheral reality too . Call Me a quack I don't care cause I know some day someone else will see it too. So it is just a matter of time
That all depends on how invisible pink unicorn theory is defined. Science is whatever the discoverers of the laws of nature, i.e., what the noteworthy scientists, say science is. You still don't understand nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations. Its only significance is in stating a counterexample to the popular belief that something physical and measurable about spacetime demands linearity in spacetime coordinate transformations. I agree that something poorly understood is poorly motivated. Whose fault is that?
Apparently [POST=2350865]this[/POST] was good enough for you: You lost all credibility when you said that. The rest of your post was self-aggrandising and flamebaiting, as usual.
Sure, if the reader doesn't respect Hilbert's vision of a unified science, then s/he isn't going to respect my acceptance of Hilbert's beautiful philosophy.
Oh yes, I forgot. You're right and everyone else is wrong because there is only one David Hilbert, and Eugene Shubert is His prophet.
All conclusions depend on presuppositions. If you don't want to respect how a great consensus of accomplished investigators of nature have defined science, then you are perfectly free to let a philosopher like Karl Popper define science for you.
I accept your lame subterfuge as a bold admission that you oppose my preference to allow all the accomplished investigators of nature to define science.
Hah. I have more actual David-Hilbert-love than E.S.'s lip service. \(\forall n \in \mathbb{N} \quad \mathrm{tr} \left( \left( \left[ \frac{n}{i + j - 1} \right]_{ij} \right)^{-1} \right) \\ = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \frac{2k + 1}{n} \binom{n + k}{n - k - 1} ^2 \binom{2k}{k} ^2 \\ = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \binom{n-1}{k} \binom{n+k}{k} \binom{n+k}{2k+1} \binom{2k}{k} \\ = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} (2k+1) \sum_{j=0}^k \binom{k+j}{j} ^2 \binom{k}{j}^2 \in \mathbb{Z}\) Example: \(\mathrm{tr} \left( \begin{pmatrix} 5 & \frac{5}{2} & \frac{5}{3} & \frac{5}{4} & 1 \\ \frac{5}{2} & \frac{5}{3} & \frac{5}{4} & 1 & \frac{5}{6} \\ \frac{5}{3} & \frac{5}{4} & 1 & \frac{5}{6} & \frac{5}{7} \\ \frac{5}{4} & 1 & \frac{5}{6} & \frac{5}{7} & \frac{5}{8} \\ 1 & \frac{5}{6} & \frac{5}{7} & \frac{5}{8} & \frac{5}{9} \end{pmatrix} ^{-1} \right) = \frac{1}{5} \binom{5}{4} ^2 \binom{0}{0} ^2 +\frac{3}{5} \binom{6}{3} ^2 \binom{2}{1} ^2 + \binom{7}{2} ^2 \binom{4}{2} ^2 +\frac{7}{5} \binom{8}{1} ^2 \binom{6}{3} ^2 +\frac{9}{5} \binom{9}{0} ^2 \binom{8}{4} ^2 = \binom{4}{0} \binom{5}{0} \binom{5}{1} \binom{0}{0} +\binom{4}{1} \binom{6}{1} \binom{6}{3} \binom{2}{1} +\binom{4}{2} \binom{7}{2} \binom{7}{5} \binom{4}{2} +\binom{4}{3} \binom{8}{3} \binom{8}{7} \binom{6}{3} +\binom{4}{4} \binom{9}{4} \binom{9}{9} \binom{8}{4} = 5 + 960 + 15876 + 35840 + 8820 = \frac{1}{5} \left( \binom{0}{0} ^2 \binom{0}{0}^2 \right) + \frac{3}{5} \left( \binom{1}{0} ^2 \binom{1}{0}^2 + \binom{2}{1} ^2 \binom{1}{1}^2 \right) + \left( \binom{2}{0} ^2 \binom{2}{0}^2 + \binom{3}{1} ^2 \binom{2}{1}^2 + \binom{4}{2} ^2 \binom{2}{2}^2 \right) + \frac{7}{5} \left( \binom{3}{0} ^2 \binom{3}{0}^2 + \binom{4}{1} ^2 \binom{3}{1}^2 + \binom{5}{2} ^2 \binom{3}{2}^2+ \binom{6}{3} ^2 \binom{3}{3}^2 \right) + \frac{9}{5} \left( \binom{4}{0} ^2 \binom{4}{0}^2 + \binom{5}{1} ^2 \binom{4}{1}^2 + \binom{6}{2} ^2 \binom{4}{2}^2+ \binom{7}{3} ^2 \binom{4}{3}^2+ \binom{8}{4} ^2 \binom{4}{4}^2 \right) = \frac{1}{5} + 3 + 73 + 2023 + \frac{297009}{5} = 61501 \in \mathbb{Z} \) http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2776 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AperysConstant.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HilbertMatrix.html
