# Discussion : Magneto

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by AlphaNumeric, Apr 14, 2011.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
I don't normally crack on someone about their writing style, Dywyddyr, but I must admit Magneto's is a bit odd. I can usually attribute it to a translational issue but I don't get the impression that Magneto speaks English as a second language.
On a side note, he did spell "odor" correctly; Skynet speaks American.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

to hide all adverts.
3. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
First, and foremost, I have other things going on in my life. My time for these on the "Fly" post are limited; so things like perfect grammar will have to suffer, when I don't have ample time to do a proper editorial review of my internet post for perfect grammar, and spelling.

So I am doing the best that I can for, on the Fly.

And, by the way the capital "J" in Jealousy was on purpose, for your continuous link back to:

Area differential based on Area differential
$dA_{rea} = d(s^{2})$$---> m^2$

Area differential based on line differential
$ds^2_{Line} = (ds)^2$$---> m^2$

to hide all adverts.
5. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,697
Well all of that presumably made some sense to you...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

to hide all adverts.
7. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
You all have many more post than I, and are very used to blogging. I on the other hand am somewhat new to this sort of "on the fly" posting on line.

I request, a little "patience room" to get up to speed in number of quality and quantity forum posts.

8. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
You, can't be serious?

9. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,697
I've never blogged.

On the contrary I was serious. Or maybe you're under the impression that I thought it made no sense to you too.:shrug:

10. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
Have you heard of the "Conservation of Energy" it is real; if you give more energy to one portion of a thing, the other portion of that thing will suffer a portion. This is the cost, there is no free lunch.

Ok, so, what have you given up? Oh, I know, "Math & Physics Skills!!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

11. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,697
Correct.
Except that it doesn't apply as such to writing.
One writes.
Then one checks.
And THEN one posts.
These tasks, not being simultaneous, may have as much "energy" applied to them as required - separately and consecutively.
It's something taught in schools...

12. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,697
I've already explained that you cannot cite yourself. You have demonstrated you don't understand the geometry of general relativity so its impossible for you to depart from something you never were located at.

Futhermore your reply doesn't do anything do address my comments. $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ is not the notion for a hypersphere. $\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ is nonsense notation. Both of these are fundamental mistakes you made. I asked you to provide a single example of such things in mainstream reputable journals and you ignored me. At least have the honesty to admit to your mistakes.

Simpler but incorrect is still incorrect.

Seriously, pack it in with your sound bites and 'press release' one liners. I have disagreed with you at every turn and I've demonstrated you wrong at every turn. You aren't going to magically be right by simply asserting your work is valid, you need to show it. Thus far you have failed and you continue to fail to respond to things I've said.

I know, physics becomes a lot more interesting once you get past the ground work, the necessary but somewhat laborious stuff. However, I have no reason to think you made it past the boring stuff, as you don't understand it. For instance, you asked me to explain the difference between tensor components and tensor rank. I did. And surprise surprise, you skipped right over it, replying to other parts of the post. This illustrates you know you've put your foot in it but you can't admit it.

And what about my walk through, again, of how you got the area element wrong, including it contradicting the arc length formula you've been quoting from Wikipedia. You skip over parts of my post you don't want to admit prove you wrong.

Yet more demonstrations of your dishonesty.

How is it funny, when it is backed up by reality? The first mention of 'Kruskal' in this thread was by me, here. I mention it again here. The first time you mention it in this thread is here, in the $\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ post.

I've mentioned it before, you admit you don't understand it. How you find that funny I don't know. Perhaps you're even more detached from reality than I thought.

That isn't the Euclidean metric for $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. The $R_{0}$ is a constant, in the 2d case, while in the 3d case it has to be $r$ or else you don't get the right form in Cartesians. Well done on not understanding it again.

You didn't do as I asked either. You claimed it was flat, I asked you to compute the Ricci curvature scalar for the 2-sphere metric. Have you done that? Have you seen that it is non-zero? It's another explicit demonstration you're incorrect.

I addressed that for the second time here, which you skipped right over. If you don't understand it, admit it. If you think you have a retprt to it, let's hear it. But simply skipping someone's retort and continuing to spout things people disagree with is dishonest.

But then that is how you try to make money from your book, avoiding review and cashing in on people's ignorance. What a shameful way to earn money.

Last edited: Apr 24, 2011
13. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
I have already explained this before; ALL, books that have an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) qualifies and comply within all academic standards as a reputable source for citing information.

Secondly, what even further validates, qualifies, and complies within all academic standards as a reputable source for citing information, if the book has the following:

1) an ISBN
2) work Registered with the Copyright Office.

Cite: Wiki - ISBN

The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) is a unique numeric commercial book identifier based upon the 9-digit Standard Book Numbering (SBN) code created by Gordon Foster, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin, for the booksellers and stationers W.H. Smith and others in 1966.

Also see, Link: United States (US) Copyright Basics

Which the Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics, has complied with both; being in possession of: 1) an ISBN, 2) US Copyright Number.

I see what the problem is..,that YOU, don't have a book to cite from?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, don't get in the way of other authors, just because of your shortcomings; Professor!:shrug:

First, and foremost, I see that you gave me a "little spoon portion" from your personal explanation, for the way you see, "tensor components and tensor rank." I don't need your help, AlphaNumeric. What I was asking you for was for discussion purposes!

But, in reality I don't want to sound too arrogant like you; we all could use a little help in every endeavor that we pursue, this is what it means, to be of an origin of fragility and human. Fragility, meaning that, if it were not for someone to have nursed or helped you, in some form, as an infant, you would not be here today!

I will get to those things you mentioned, shortly, I got called away to help someone on another unrelated project, so my time as been stretched, and I have to slow my physics down for a minute or so.

Oh, so now you are claiming "First Mention" rights. Get out of Here!! This sounds like something a kid would say, "I mentioned it before you!" is akin to saying, "tag your it!"

You are so arrogant, you "Reek of a foul odor"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, you think that you are the only one to have heard of where a solution lurks for dealing with infinities or singularities in the equations that we have been discussing; or that I have been teaching you!

Do you really believe that I could get to the point where I have a relatively good grasp of the Schwarzschild Metric (SC), I still have some improving to do there; and not even consider for one minute that maybe, just maybe there might be a solution for this. No, I figured that I would wait until I would magically run into a "character" named "AlphaNumeric" who would save the day and reveal to me the 'Kruskal' method for resolving coordinate singularities at the SC radius. Give me a break!

14. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
AlphaNumeric, you know that when you "continuously" make statements like one above; and you "continuously" ask me to, "tell you more?" about the following equations:

Area differential based on Area differential

$dA_{rea} = d(s^{2})$$---> m^2$

Area differential based on line differential

$ds^2_{Line} = (ds)^2$$---> m^2$

Inverse N-Sphere

$\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}$

It makes you look dishonest! But I am sure that you and your other characters are ok with that! Wow! I am up to six now!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your retorts, they completely invalidate your "credibility" for your false claim of "discredibility" of my work. In fact it greatly, gives further credence to its "Credibility."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

15. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
Here you have described the "Map/Patch Area" Metric using "Complex General Relativity" CGR

1) $ds^{2} = (R_{0})^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2}) = g_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{b}$

Will you now also express this Euclidean Metric using "Complex General Relativity" CGR?

2) $ds^{2} = dr^{2} + (R_{0})^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2}) =$ (Complex General Relativity CGR - Metric)

I asked you to resolve this and your reply was:

I understand that for you to obtain the "first equation" above you are using the fact that ($dr^{2} = 0$).

So, once again, "Professor", my challenge to you is to express the second equation above, using your "Complex GR" equations.

I know that the first equations works because you have demonstrated that Map/Patch Area equation before using (CGR); and from it you did a "magic" trick and solved the Geodesic Path Length Equation ($ds --> s$).

Here, I will quote JamesR, "Are my “Questions” too “Hard” for you??"

Last edited: Apr 25, 2011
16. ### Guest254Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,056
This is now going beyond stupid. You are a fraud and your ridiculous antics aren't fooling anyone. The above quote indicates your complete ignorance of even basic mathematics.

However, on a personal note, I'm delighted for you to continue to post on here. Your posts help advertise what a joke the self-published book "Super Principia Mathematica" is.

17. ### rpennerFully WiredRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
That is a child-raping lie.

18. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,697
That is simply flat out wrong.

There's absolutely no vetting or requirements in regards to accuracy, validity, truthfulness, sanity or anything when it comes to getting an ISBN number. It is a catalogue number, not some kind of stamp of approval.

You've now gone from making up things of a mathematical nature, which some might find difficult to spot, to making up things anyone can see to be false.

Neither of which have anything to do with academic standards.

Besides, the whole point of this thread is that I question your claims so referencing your claims to try to justify your claims is circular.

Firstly I have references books in discussions with you, such as 'Mathematical Physics' from Chicago Press and 'Geometry, Topology and Physics' by Nakahara. Both of those books are written by authors who have got work meeting academic standards.

Secondly whether or not I have a book of my own to reference is immaterial in regards to whether or not your claims are valid.

Thirdly you having a book doesn't make your claims any more valid, as you had to pay to get it published and any delusional idiot can do that.

Fourthly I do have a 'book' which is catalogued in reference libraries, my PhD. All PhDs are kept on file, both physically and electronically. In my case there's a copy held on file with the British Library, as I did my PhD here in the UK. And unlike you I don't charge people to read my work and particularly unlike you my work passed review, it meets academic standards.

It's Doctor, Mr Kemp.

You obviously do need my help, else you'd not have had that issue with confusing tensor rank and tensor components.

You claimed Kip Thorne stole your work!! You're way past trying to pretend you're not arrogant.

I was responding to your comments about laughing at my statement I had to explain Kruskal coordinates to you after you said there's no way to model the dynamics of things inside the event horizon.

You seem to struggle to reply with relevant coherent things. Do you think your behaviour somehow puts you on the high ground of the discussion?

I think, sorry, I know I'm a more competant physicist than you and I know I have more understanding of general relativity and the topics discussed in this thread, unless you've been pretending to be exceptionally stupid and poorly read. That isn't arrogant, as you set the bar extremely low. I'd say that anyone capable of passing a 3rd year exam on general relativity will know more than you. I'd say anyone capable of passing a 1st year vector calculus course at a good university is more capable than you. As such I'm putting myself in the majority of people who do physics at university, which isn't particularly arrogant.

Cranks so often make the mistake of thinking that because I think I'm better than them then I must be exceptionally arrogant. It's actually a sign of their (your) arrogance because you believe you set the bar so high that anyone who feels they are better than you must believe themselves to be exceptionally brilliant. For instance, Farsight once proclaimed himself a world beating expert in electromagnetism but I firmly believe I'm more competent at it than him. I do not believe myself to be a world beating expert in it, I simply believe Farsight is a great deal less capable than he believes.

No, I don't believe I'm the only one. I just don't think you're in the group of people who have heard of them. You're certainly not in the group which understand them.

No, as you haven't demonstrated said 'relatively good grasp'. You wrote an entire book thinking it was $d(s^{2}) = -d(t^{2}) + d(r^{2}) + \ldots$ for pete sake. You've tried to back peddle in this thread, after I pointed out this fatal flaw but you've only dug yourself in deeper.

color emphasis mine

I simply cannot believe you continue with this. I've address all of those expressions several times. $\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ is not only not an inverse N-sphere, its meaningless notation. I've asked you several times to give me one example of any paper which uses such notation. You've ignored me and you have the hypocrisy to call me dishonest?! $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ is the notation for Euclidean N-space. An N dimensional sphere is denoted $S^{N}$. I've already explained this to you. It's also mentioned in one of papers and my thesis, which you claimed to understand. As I suspected and commented on, that blurb about hyper spheres you quoted at me several times is something you don't understand, you just copy and paste.

As for the difference between $d(s^{2})$ and $(ds)^{2}$ I've also addressed that several times. Here was the second time I explicitly went through it in detail. You never addressed anything I said, you just ignored it and now you're repeating the same debunked nonsense.

How you can possibly be so blatently dishonest and yet have the hypocrisy to call me dishonest I don't know. You ask ""tell you more?" about the following equations:" yet you've ignored I've given lengthy comment on them twice, both times you skipped over it.

Do you think no one else is reading the thread or that everyone will magically forget what has been said or that I'll not just link back to previous posts where I've addressed these things and you ignore them?

You're moving from just ignorant nonsense to simply trolling, throwing out debunked nonsense, demanding I debunk it and then ignore it when I do.

Yes, in spherical coordinates it is easy to define an $S^{2}$ manifold embedding into $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ by just setting $r = R_{0}$ into the full metric, :

$\mathbb{R}^{3}$ : $ds^{2} = dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2})$

Let $r = R_{0}$ such that $dr = 0$. The 2 dimensional region defined by $r = R_{0}$ is the algebraic variety $x^{2} + y^{2} + z^{2} = R_{0}^{2}$, which is the 'canonical' (in some sense) embedding of $S^{2}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. The $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ metric defines a metric on $S^{2}$ by restriction :

$S^{2}$ : $ds^{2} = R_{0}^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2})$

I don't know why you call this "(Complex General Relativity CGR - Metric)" because its just the standard metric for a 2-sphere of radius $R_{0}$. This can be defined using simple geometry, this doesn't need to have anything to do with general relativity. Riemannian geometry is a much more general concept than general relativity. General relativity is the application of parts of Riemannian geometry to modelling gravity, many aspects are left out. Giving this standard metric, something many students learn long before they ever study GR (if they study GR at all), a pointlessly over the top name only makes it seem like you're trying to jazz up trivial well known results because your work lacks actual substance.

I don't know why you keep trying to insult me by calling me '"Professor"'. You've previously claimed to have been an academic at the University of Phoenix so trying to insult me by using an academic title is a little daft. Also I actually have an academic title, which I earnt for producing work which has been reviewed and found to meet academic standards. Do you think that'd be something you can insult me for, Mr Kemp?

You're the one who coined the phrase 'complex general relativity', not me. To what of 'my' equations are you referring? All of the equations I've discussed in this thread are just normal general relativity. In fact, as I just commented, much of this stuff isn't even general relativity, its simpler than that, GR just gives some of it physical context. The metric for the 2-sphere is one of the most well known and simplest non-trivial cases in all of geometry.

So what precisely are you challenging me to do? I challenged you to provide me with a single example of a paper published in a reputable journal using the specific notation $\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}$, in reference to a hypersphere or otherwise. You ignored my request, on more than one occasion. There's the honesty in that?

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you don't have a slightly loose grip on reality. In every one of my posts where I've replied to something mathematical you've claimed I've corrected you. I've provided lengthy explanations of your mistakes and I've walked you through correct methods. I've provided you with my research and publications, which have meet standards your work has not. So you trying to play the "Are my questions too hard?" game is a little silly. This is particularly so when you ask something in regards to the 2-sphere metric, which is (as I just said) the simplest non-trivial example of a metric in geometry. One of my papers involved examining the dynamics of a 7 dimensional object moving through a black hole space-time formed by a 3 dimensional object while 3 of its directions are wrapped around a 3-sphere sub-manifold of a 5-sphere. A rational person would take that as a sign I'm able to do a decent level of tensor calculus when it comes to the metrics of hyper spheres and objects on them. Yet despite that, despite having your arse handed to you at every turn, despite providing examples of your categorical mistakes, despite walking you through fundamental misunderstandings you have, despite you having provided absolutely no retort to these criticisms, you try to play the "Oh is this too hard for you?" taunt?

I don't know what thread you're reading but you've been completely shredded in this one. The question isn't whether I find this stuff too hard, it is whether you have any grasp of what is even going on.

19. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,697
Here Magneto does the dishonest thing of continuing to use his $\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{3}}$ notation (ie he hasn't checked whether it is right, despite being told it isn't) but fortunately it means we can see what he thinks it means. I'll quote it here :

He thinks its something to do with radius, that it is a length!! :roflmao:

$\mathbb{R}^{3}$ doesn't mean 'radius cubed' or somehow $r^{\frac{2}{3}}$. It has nothing to do with radii. It is the notation for the space described by the Cartesian product of three copies of the set of Reals, $\mathbb{R}$, ie $\mathbb{R}^{3} \equiv \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$. This is seen explicitly in the fact you can describe locations in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ using Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z) where each x,y,z is an element in $\mathbb{R}$, the Real numbers.

If we were to only allow x,y,z to take integer values, ie $x,y,z \in \mathbb{Z}$ then $(x,y,z) \in \mathbb{Z}^{3}$. Or if they were all complex numbers $x,y,z \in \mathbb{C}$ then $(x,y,z) \in \mathbb{C}^{3}$. See how it works? It is a nice way of defining simple types of spaces. In the case of $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$ you can define smooth manifolds. N-Spheres cannot be written as the Cartesian product of N one dimensional manifolds so $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ cannot be referring to a spherical manifold, it is referring to the one and only Euclidean manifold of dimension 3. An N-sphere is denoted by $S^{N}$. Again, this has nothing to do with radii, it is not a length or a power of a length or a function in any way of a length. It defines a particular type of manifold.

Given you have displayed ignorance in regards to the difference between locations and directions, coordinates and vectors, base manifolds and tangent spaces and now you show you don't even understand a notation which appears on almost every page of a textbook on GR it is clear you need to go back and learn what a manifold is. And by that I don't mean go and find it on Wikipedia and then come back and copy and paste the definition, I mean you actually read a book on such things (the book 'Geometry, Topology and Physics' I've mentioned is very good in that regard) and work through some example problems to do with them. Such things as doing coordinate transformations properly on vectors and metrics and line intervals for instance, since coordinate transformations play a central role in the definition of manifolds.

Hopefully now you see why $\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ is meaningless, to say nothing to do with hyper-spheres. It is like saying "What is 1 divided by a square?". To then equate such an expression to an expression like $\frac{1}{r^{2}}$ is hopefully also now obviously wrong to you.

20. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
Your words are like, "Sound and Fury,...Signifying Absolutely Nothing!":bugeye:

I am trying to suit you; Dr.Professor. You have so many characters; Who knows maybe your PhD credentials are made up? Who knows maybe the "Thesis" that you point to belongs to another "character?":shrug:

I Know that there is a (N*(N-1)) or this even (N-1) kind of thing going on here. Like I said to you before in the study of geometry, and in using your Notation I do not go beyond (N = 4), Dr.Professor:

($\frac{1}{r^N} = \frac{1}{S^N_{Sph}$)

Where, (N = 2)

($\frac{1}{r^2} = \frac{1}{S^2_{Sph}$)

And

$r^{2} = x^{2} + y^{2} + z^{2}$

Beyond (N = 4), I have no consideration for at this time, and I depart on to other more fun "Newtonian" matter in motion concepts.

Last edited: Apr 26, 2011
21. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
AlphaNumeric, you keep asking me to suggest a book for you to read in your spare time. Here is a good book for you to read!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Introduction to Tensor Calculus, Relativity and Cosmology, by D.F Lawden.

Paperback: 224 pages
Publisher: Dover Publications; 3 edition (January 27, 2003)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0486425401
ISBN-13: 978-0486425405
Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.1 x 0.4 inches

It is what I call "Complex General Relativity" (CGR) and is a good book in all honesty. It "cuts right to the quick" on what you need to understand the complex mathematics of CGR.

Now, if you need an additional reference book that will inspire you into new ideas of thinking and mathematical reasoning of "Classical General Relativity" (GR); then I would suggest:

Super Principia Mathematica The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematica Physics - The General Theory of Relativity

Hardcover: 544 pages
Publisher: Flying Car Publishing Company; First edition (July 20, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0984151826
ISBN-13: 978-0984151820
Product Dimensions: 11.2 x 8.8 x 1.5 inches

Best.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

22. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,697
Clutching at straws now :lol: Other members will confirm I am who I say I am. Some of them have met me in real life, some of them I speak to via PM a lot, some of them don't like me and wanted to find out who I am. Farsight and I don't see eye to eye about his work but he'll confirm I do indeed have a PhD and I am the person who authored the work I linked you to.

But even if I weren't that wouldn't make your claims any more valid. Your "I have a book, where is yours?" line of 'argument' simply doesn't hold water. Despite how thick I think you are I give you enough credit that I don't think you seriously believe such an 'argument' is a valid one, you just wanted some retort, any retort, to come back with and you couldn't argue with the maths I'd provided. Unfortunately, not only was it a desperately weak 'argument' but it back fired on you, as a thesis is indeed a catalogued publication. Farsight has a similar thing happen to him, when he tried an insult of "Managed to get a job yet with your string theory PhD? Is it in physics?". He'd repeatedly said Ben and myself (Ben also has a string theory PhD) were going to end up with worthless bits of paper. Turned out I did have a job and it was in physics. :lol:

As I just explained, $\mathbb{R}$ is nothing to do with radii, it is a notation for a kind of manifold formed by a Cartesian product of copies of the Real numbers. As such $\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ is meaningless. Yes, you can define an N dimensional version of spherical coordinates which has a coordinate r and then you can define potentials of the form $V(r) = \sum_{n=0}^{N}\frac{a_{n}}{r^{n}}$ but that is quite different from the notation $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{N}$. The fact you have misunderstood what $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ mean, despite them appearing in every single vector calculus or tensor calculus or geometry or relativity textbooks dozens, even hundreds of times, shows just how poor your grasp of the subjects is and just how dishonest you are when you claim you've read such things and understand them.

You continue to dig and dig and dig, each time attempting to insult me and each time you just provide yet more evidence you're utterly clueless. My view of you has gone from someone who knows a little but not enough to have a working understanding through to someone who knows nothing, just parrots (aka copy and pastes) without understanding and incorrectly botches together parroted equations using high school methods and now through to someone with a slightly loose grip on rationality. You try to insult me for having an education and published work. When I point out such insults don't work you move on to questioning my education, as if it would make any difference to your claims. To try to pretend you've been correcting me and doing stuff beyond my comprehension when every single post has been the reverse.

Honestly, do you think no one is going to be able to read the thread for themselves? It's all there in black and white (or whatever the background colour here is). Anything I've said which someone queries I can provide references for. Any bit of calculation I've done which someone wants expanded on I'll do. The same can't be said for you. Though I share Guest's view that your continued participation in this 'discussion' is humorous entertainment, wondering how you'll put your foot in it in new and daft ways, I still feel I should suggest you re-evaluate continuing. Its like watching a car crash, except each time the driver gets back behind the wheel, shuts his eyes and puts his foot down again! It's no skin off my nose, slapping you silly is a welcome change from difficult maths problems I work on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/edit

I've seen you've posted 2 book recommendations, one of which is your own. I wouldn't pay for your book, I've already explored the limits of your understanding in this thread and I've found you lacking. As for the book on tensor calculus, I'm well versed in it thanks. If you had looked at my thesis and understood it you'd have seen I make extensive use of such calculus. Of course we both know you didn't understand it, even if you looked at it, but the fact I've corrected you on many tensor related things has illustrated my understanding enough for this discussion's purposes. Besides, it is clear you haven't understood that book, if you've ever even read it, else you'd not have made that laughable mistake with the $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ notation.

I did look up that book on Google Books and those pages visible contain many of the equations you've been quoting. Have you just unwittingly given away the source you're copy and pasting from?

Last edited: Apr 26, 2011
23. ### Magneto_1Super PrincipiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
295
AlphaNumeric, I have to be honest with you, I have only recently come across that symbol, I am sure around 2008 - 2009 time frame. When dealing with map data. I thought that the design of the symbol was fascinating. Once I dug into this a little deeper, I discovered that there was this (N - 1) thing going on with another similar symbol that you bring up.

And the contention for me has something to deal with how you express, Euclidean Spheres or Manifold Surfaces in multiple dimensions. And contrast that with the concept of Hyperspheres (N-Spheres) which also deals with Euclidean Spheres and Surfaces in a different kind of multiple dimensions.

This contention was too much for me to resolve, and I never needed to go past (N = 4). And I figured that I would leave those Manifold types concepts later; after the String Theory Guys finish their debate of the 10th or 11th dimension. Some would argue that this is over and the 10th Dimension is the winner!

So don't try to mix things up. Things like "Nomenclature" that is for "kids." We all have to learn to translate to communicate. You can't just say that my language is better than your language, when you are clearly aware that different tongues can describe the same thing, however sounding differently to each hearer. After all isn't this what relativity is all about?