The speed of light may have been broken.

What an intelligible mod you are.

So, did you read this work? I think Reiku's work is spot on. I read his work here earlier, most of his work was four years ago. So, as PhD, according to posters here, could you explain any discrepencies here, for those who can understand your continued disregard for the man, if not, the justified continuance of ridicule against him?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't see a problem in any of that mathematical work. If anything, I see someone a bit sour over the work. PROVE me wrong, and show me his work as being, incompatible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, and I do not mean anything he wrote here 4 years ago, I mean his mathematical work here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1792595

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your universe crunched with your idea's I AM afraid...

 

Hi AlphaNumeric,

I am quite sure that the axes of the diagram are space on the ordinate, time on the abscissa, and though devoid of scale as you note, and although a schematic of a sort, do you not agree that it is an explanation for observed phenomena (such as in a cloud chamber) showing the sense of the space and time in each of the particle tracks of an annihilation/creation interaction?

Or, let me just ask this: do you say that there is a time reversal as we would be encouraged by Dr. Feynman to recognize in his diagrams?

 

You think this is the first time someone has noticed?

Less than 4 years ago he was posting here regularly. During that time he was caught plagiarising, flat out lying and couldn't do any kind of relevant mathematics. We're not talking about the specifics of curved space-time quantum field theory, he couldn't multiply out (a+b)(c+d). He couldn't get his units right, regularly equating things like seconds with metres. He couldn't use vectors properly. He didn't know what normalisation in quantum mechanics meant. He claimed to be doing advanced general relativity at a pre-university level college. He claimed to have work accepted for review.

So do you really think someone who can't multiply out brackets, something 10 years olds know how to do, could provide a viable quantum field theory model of neutrinos? Do I think he's learnt all the required material in the time since then? Not in the slightest because he rears his head here every now and again and illustrates he hasn't moved on.

He's not above copying material from valid sources, altering it slightly and passing it off as if he's worked through it himself. His original problem was he tried to change it too much and introduced trivial mistakes everywhere. Now he just alters things a little. The thread on TSR is an example of that. It's easy to impress people who don't know any of his past by posting other people's work. He tried it on PhysOrg when we first met. He challenged me to a 'physics quiz' and the only question he answered as a copy and paste of someone else's work, hoping it would be accepted as his.

Much of that stuff he has posted on this forum, I recognise it. Even still has the same poorly written mistakes in it. For example, under "To compute the action, you must multiply this by it's conjugate:" he gives 2 expressions with equal signs, implying to the casual reader they are equal. They obviously aren't. He's failed to do what he says in the text, to actually manifestly multiple the expression with its conjugate. Instead he has literally written down \(D \phi = |D \phi|^{2}\). Sloppy presentation, showing he doesn't understand what he's writing, he just parrots it. Likewise with his expressions for partial deriatives, he writes \(\partial x\), not realising it is actually \(\partial_{x}\). There's a HUGE difference, but despite him having had it discussed in this forum he still hasn't learnt.

He's a mindless parrot, copying and pasting what he thinks he can get away with. The problem is he doesn't understand what he types so when he slips up and drops an underscore or puts the dot in the wrong place he doesn't realise. At the very least that is a terribly written set of posts, at worst its incorrect or plagiarism. Up until he mentions U(1) half way down the long post nothing he's said is actually new, it's basic definitions and standard expressions. For a 'new theory' why is he reproducing utterly banal bookwork and definitions anyone reading the post and understanding it would be extremely familiar with. It's like opening a paper on electromagnetism by explaining what a vector is.

Anyone defending him falls into two categories, either someone who doesn't know any mathematical physics or they are a sock puppet of his. I don't have an up to date IP for Reiku but yours certainly does come close to his old ones. Coincidence?

 

Sir, I am under the impression that Reiku was pretty much an amateur when he speculated this stuff. His math cannot be questioned now, in other words, his work can now be taken seriously. I think reading his work will show easily, what he could not do then, he has excelled in now. NO?

Can you just look at this mathematical work now? I have. I can't see anything wrong in it.

 

May I add, for Reiku's sake, the difference between \(M_x\) and \(My\) are obviously different. I think this is rather a statement on latex rather than understanding the derivatives of the work.

 

That is quite a simplistic error being placed upon the boy. After, as I said, 4-years yes?

 

I have seen professors in my unit make simpler errors.