Discussion : Magneto

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Magneto_1 Super Principia Registered Senior Member


    Did you just quote that, or do you actually believe that? Because if you do; then everything that you have just learned, or were re-exposed to in a more insightful way, you are forever 100% "Responsible!"

    To what notation are you referring?

    You and AlphaNumeric must be "brothers?" Because hypocrisy flows every time your fingers hit the keyboard!

    Don't you see above that you have tried to correct me, and added your own form of notation or nomenclature? I actually like this nomenclature that you have provided, by the way.


    However, can you cite for me any reference, reputable or non-reputable where that nomenclature is currently being used? Thanks!

    Were you able to grasp the concepts being discussed? Were you able to recognize common symbols used correctly? The symbols that were used that were "non-standard" were they in the general theme of the topic? If you found a symbol that was non-standard were you able to make the correction in your mind, for "oh, that is what the author is doing; now I get it.

    I have to do that every time I read a new book on GR.

    So if you answer "yes" to all of the above questions then the following applies.

    What I get from you, as an assessment of my work, and based on your "meandering" posts, is that the "Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics - The General Theory" has just walked you, and your secret "buddies" down that, "Royal Road To Geometry!!"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    As Rpenner says, simply restating your already retorted claims doesn't magically make them true. I've retorted what you've said, there is no need to go over it again, since you seem to ignore corrections 1, 2, 5 times.

    I'm also waiting for you to provide a single example of \(\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\) in the literature. You claimed you first saw it in 2008/2009. Where? What book or journal? Give a source.

    You can't play the "OMG you're dishonest!!" whining card when you refuse to answer a simple question more than 5 times. Can you provide a source or not? If you can't then have the honesty to admit it.

    I also asked you to provide a link to the post of mine where I said ""I only know how to solve the Manifold Surface Metric", as you claimed here. You made up a quote about me, just flat made it up. You can't pretend to be outraged by my supposed dishonesty when you're doing that.

    You're trolling. If you can't answer simple questions, each of which can be answered with a single link, you're being a troll.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magneto_1 Super Principia Registered Senior Member

    Now, who is really being "dishonest?" If you look back, I asked you at least three (3) times to provide for me the "Complex General Relativity" metric for the "Non-Euclidean" Minkowski Space-time. And all you kept pointing me to was the "Map/Patch/Manifold" metric. In fact, I was the one that had to provide "the correct answer" for you. Not to mention you not getting that (f(t)^2) correct; you don't know that the square of a thing is the product of root terms?

    The reason that I did not expose you is that, I am a gentleman, and did not want to embarrass you! But I know it’s too late for that already; you have become tolerable to the pain of embarrassment’s forces!

    You know, you don't grasp things well? Ok, I will tell it to you plainly, like I am speaking to a sixth grader; which I thought that I did make plainly clear before. I don't have the energy for linking back to it right now.

    I first saw this symbol (\({\mathbb{R}^{N}}\)) not this equation (\(\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\)); 2008 - 2009. I ran into this (\({\mathbb{R}^{N}}\)) when researching manifolds. This is not something that you would get into unless you have some really good familarity with (GR) and (CGR). I was finished with the work and research that I wanted to accomplish in (GR) by 2009; whatever concept or symbol that did not make it into the book was going to have to wait until the second (2nd) edition of the Super Principia Mathematica is released.

    I am not sure if you are aware, but Isaac Newton's, Principia Mathematica - Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, the one that we read today is the "Third Edition" of Newton's Principia. What happened during that time was, that Newton, kept running into individuals like you, that wanted to continue to challenge Newton's ideas; such that he was forced to re-write, clear up notation, and explain things a little clearer in each edition. I can't believe that he did polished that ball so completely in only three attempts and not five; unbelievable.

    This equation (\(\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{n}} = \frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N+1}} \)); I formulated this equation, but using a different symbol in (2004 - 2005); and published in the Super Principia in June 2010.

    So the answer to your question is, No. There is not a second source other than the Super Principia, that I can point you to; because it is not found in any other literature, as yet. This is why the Super Principia was written, to expose new concepts in physics and mathematics.

    And, possibly, "Paul" to use you as my; Herald!! This is what I am interviewing you for?

    I am not worried about your continuous "Dishonesty" like you would imagine!!

    This is what you are asking me; Dr. Kemp, How long have you been studying GR?

    I have been doing physics full time in my spare time since 1988. From 1988 to about 1995 I focused on Galilean Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Atomic Particle and Sub Atomic energy units in general.

    I wrote a thesis in 1994 that was refereed: The Principle of Photon Inertia

    I also wrote a paper in 1994, titled: The Quantization of Electromagnetic Change

    I believe that I was about your age when I did those things.

    One of my favorite living physicist that I worked with at the time; Vernon Brown, author of the Photon Only Universe Theory.

    I know that you would think of this guy as a "crack pot" but he published a work in 1992 that proved that photons could bend in to closed phase locked loops and form what we know today as particles. And to accomplish this he modified Arthur Compton's wavelength equation along side Einstein's Mass/Energy equation and got an "Electromagnetic Radius" term for the electron, and constituents of the proton and neutron.

    From 1995 to about 2010 I focused on: Laws of Motion, General Relativity, Thermodynamics, Cosmology, and High Energy physics.

    One of my favorite living physicist that I worked with at the time; Steven Rado, author of Aethro-Kinematics & Aethro-Dynamics.

    I also, know that you would think of this guy as a "crack pot" likewise, but he published a work in 1994 and a second separate work in 2010, that provided the basic mechanics for building Aether Gravitational Vortex Models. In essence he re-incarnated the Aether back into the physics that Einstein discarded; but then suddenly picked back up again.

    These guys, although not mainstream have stumbled onto things that others have discarded, is my "humble assessment and opinion."

    I learn a lot from the "right crack pots" they typically have really good conceptual skills but lack the proper math skills to properly argue their stance; as they are forced by the Alphanumeric types of the world to shrink back into obscurity for not adhering to proper mathematical training.

    Also, I see another guy coming up through the ranks "heralding" a theory that others have discarded; Farsight!
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    I think this latest post of Magneto_1's does a wonderful job of demonstrating that Robert Louis Kemp, author of the self-published joke of a book "Super Principia Mathematica" hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

    He is a fraud, and more to the point, he is a complete idiot.
  8. temur man of no words Registered Senior Member

    Magneto's posts are degenerating into something like Reiku's or Farsight's posts. This make me wonder again may be Magneto is a reincarnation of Reiku after all.
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    I've addressed those. Firstly, you say " the "Map/Patch/Manifold" metric". There is no such thing. All manifolds can be covered in patches of where coordinates relate the region to a subset of \(\mathbb{R}^{N}\). That's in the definition of 'manifold', which I gave here. That's what the pairings \((U_{a},\phi_{a})\) mean. Also not all manifolds have metrics. Topological manifolds for instance do not all have metrics, something I also pointed out here. Thus this "All you gave me was the map/patch/manifold metric" is nonsense.

    You also make the mistake of thinking a choice of coordinate changes the metric. For unconstrained coordinates both \(dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\) and \(dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} +\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2})\) are the Euclidean metric, just written in different ways.

    Furthermore, something I said many times over many pages, 'complex general relativity' is a phrase you made up.

    I've addressed everything you asked. The fact you don't understand or didn't want to hear it doesn't mean I ignored you. People only need to read the previous page of this thread, it is all there. Why you think you can get away with such blatant lying I don't know.

    No, the reason you don't 'expose me' is you can't.

    Notice how I can link to posts of mine, to show I indeed said something I claim I said. I've asked you to provide a link to a post of mine where I said ""I only know how to solve the Manifold Surface Metric", as you claimed here. Still no link from you. You're a troll.

    That is what I initially took you to mean. Here I respond to that, saying that if the first time you ever came across \(\mathbb{R}^{N}\) was in 2008 then you can't have read any book on vectors, calculus, geometry, special or general relativity or tensors before then. Nor could you have done basic maths courses in linear algebra or analysis. That's because \(\mathbb{R}\) is everywhere in mathematics.

    You then changed your tune here and I quote :

    You changed your tune and now you're changing it again, claiming I misunderstood you. No, you say it plain as day, you said \(\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\) after I pointed out that if you mean \(\mathbb{R}\) then you've shot yourself in the foot.

    There, absolute black and white proof you're a liar.

    Citation needed.

    In other words you just made shit up.

    And all of your 'new concepts' I've slapped down without even having to think about it, the mistakes are so basic.

    You have no doctorate. I've specifically referred to you as Mr Kemp several times. Don't do a 'Kent Hovind' and pretend you have qualifications you don't. But then he also got his qualifications from a degree mill.

    And yet you never came across \(\mathbb{R}\) until 2008? Every book I own or have read on quantum mechanics, relativity, vector calculus, tensors, electromagnetism, linear algebra etc uses the notation \(\mathbb{R}\) somewhere.

    Your (self contradicted) claim you didn't see it till 2008 contradicts your claim you've been doing physics 'full time in your spare time' (now there's a misleading way of saying something!) since the early 90s.

    A thesis which is not published, produced no published papers and didn't give you a doctorate.

    A paper which wasn't published.

    Then I've done more in less time then you.

    The rest of your post is pointless biographic information. You can't justify your claims, you can't admit you fabricated a quote about me, you can't face you've contradicted yourself numerous times. You're a fraud, a liar and a hack.

    Given you changed your "I saw \(\mathbb{R}\) in 2008" here to "I saw \(\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\) in 2008" here to "I saw \(\mathbb{R}\) in 2008" here and were moronic enough to accuse me of not understanding you I'm now beginning to think you're purely a troll whose trying to see how mind blowingly self contradictory and idiotic you can be until someone finally steps in and kicks you out.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2011
  10. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Given his "In 2008 I first saw \(\mathbb{R}\), no \(\frac{1}{\mathbb{R}}\), no \(\mathbb{R}\)!!" screw up, his "Well my reference is my own book!", his continued obsession with 'complex general relativity' and inability to realise 'map/patch/manifold metric' is nonsense I've reported him for trolling. Unfortunately Ben hasn't been around for a fortnight, else he'd have put a stop to this a long time ago. Hopefully JamesR or one of the other moderators can step in and call time on this. I've retorted every claim he's made, several times in some cases, and pointed out a huge number of fundamental errors which completely destroy his claim to have been well read.

    Mr Kemp isn't honest, isn't informed and isn't interested in science, only conning people out of their hard earned money with his bullshit. The thread is done and hopefully a passing mod can lock it.
  11. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    I concur and only by great force of will have I managed to avoid stepping on your prerogative to request moderator action.
  12. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Well, if you want to be taken apart by someone who has no math or physics degree, as opposed to people with relevant Ph.D.'s....

    I certainly like to think so.
    For one, the \(g_{ab}\) metric tensor which you don't seem to know the properties or application of. For another, \(\mathbb{R}\) from analysis.

    Again you use the word 'hypocrisy' without answering specific questions about your use of it in the nearly 2-week old post of mine that you quote now.

    "V", being the initial letter of "volume", is conventional. You yourself used \(V_{ol}\) so the initial letter convention can't be that controversial.
    Here is one of the more respectable references on the web: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VolumeIntegral.html
    Likewise for \(dV\) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VolumeElement.html

    As for a subscript which identifies in English or English abbreviation the specific application of the the generic symbol, that has myriads of generic examples. Here however is a specific example of the usage:
    http://www.bibles.org.uk/antares.pdf (Page 1)

    My ability to parse what you wrote allows me to criticize \(V_{ol}\) as "eccentric at best" and to suggest better (less eccentric, more meaningful to the reader) symbols.

    Well, if you read (and understood, as is implied when AlphaNumeric uses the verb) Wald's General Relativity textbook, and were not just skipping over the math, you would be able to use tensors in space-time correctly. It has a fast introduction, suitable for people who have mastered electromagnetism and multivariable calculus at the baccalaureate level without being exposed to tensors.

    I do tend to meander onto grounds for exposition, because I think it would be important to understand the richness of the math and physics I have to convey. It is mendacious to suggest that your book is of value to students seeking a better understanding of General Relativity, or from what we have seen here, math or physics. You have yet to master the "number line," a subject introduced circa 4th grade mathematics.
    http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/math-ch2-4-7.pdf (1.9 on page 43)
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011
  13. Magneto_1 Super Principia Registered Senior Member


    Bravo Maestro :bravo:RPenner, this was great: :worship:

    The Total Euclidean Spherical Volume:

    \(V_{ol} = V_{\textrm{Euclidean}} = \frac{4\pi}{3} r^3 \) \( -> m^3 \)

    The Eccentric Volume which would describe the Oblate Ellipsoid "Donut Vortex" volume which can be used to describe the electron, and the earth.

    The Eccentric Volume which would describe the Prolate Ellipsoid "Football Vortex" volume which can be used to describe the photon, and various states of matter.

    I have not provided the eccentric volume to you, the above is the Spherical Euclidean Volume.

    I have made no other claims other than I have built models that fit within the framework of "Classical General Relativity" (GR), and "Complex General Relativity" (CGR).

    If you understand this so well, why did you not include this "Real Number Line Set of Real Numbers" equation, that you and your "Siamese Con-Joined Twin AlphaNumeric" knows so well:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Real Line Equation: \(\mathbb{R}\)

  14. Magneto_1 Super Principia Registered Senior Member

    I know that is very scary! And, too boot, you had the opportunity to try and sharpen your iron sword against my iron sword. Heaven, have mercy on the world for the monster that I have just unleashed!!:bawl:

    I wish, that I would have had the opportunity to meet someone like a Magneto or Dr. Kemp, when I was 27!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note:

    Magneto_1 has made no attempt to address any of the objections put to him by AlphaNumeric and others. His work does not use accepted notation correctly, and he appears to have no meaningful understanding of general relativity. Since Magneto_1 has taken to simply repeating his previous posts with no further elaboration or evidence that he understands anything he wrote, there is little point in continuing this thread.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page