# Gravigyro-Magnetic Equations with the Angle Between Spin States and a Force Equation

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Feb 28, 2012.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
You don't even know physics. And what, because you are currently having a heated-debate with me, you think you can come in here and try and sway the opinions of who... James?

As alphanumeric said himself, James is a big boy. He can make decisions for himself.

And you comment on me being childish... yet your clearly now diverting time to a thread containing relativity which I bet you can't even understand. I bet you wouldn't even know the relationship

$\box \phi = \rho$

to hide all adverts.
3. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
33,092
Yes, indeed I can.

Here are the "references" you cited in the opening post.

I checked the first two links, and the papers there have nothing to do with anything you posted, as far as I can tell.

The next two references are incomplete. Are they references to books, papers or what? If they are to books, please include the year of publication and also preferably the publisher and the author(s) initials. If they are to papers, include the journal name, the issue, the year of publication etc. The aim of a reference list is to allow somebody to find the reference you used.

It is not clear which parts of your post are supposed to be original and which parts are not. You appear to mixing your own work with the work of other people, without clearly distinguishing which is which. That in itself is a form of plagiarism. Please be aware that appropriating other people's ideas as your own without acknowledgment is plagiarism, unless those ideas are "common knowledge".

Certainly, reproducing or paraphrasing or cherry-picking some portion of a chapter of a book (e.g. the work of Motz or Sciama, I assume), without CLEARLY acknowledging the source, is plagiarism.

You should explicitly say: "The following results are reproduced from Sciama ... blah blah blah...". Or alternatively, at the start of your post, you could put "This post is in sections. Section 1 is a reproduction of material from Motz's book ... Section 2 is my own work, using Motz as a starting point."

Imagine if I wrote a novel titled "The white whale" by James R, which started like this:

"Once upon a time, I was a sailor who worked on whaling ships. Call me Ishmail. My Captain's name was Captain Ahab. How I met him I will shortly recount..."

And then in the "list of sources" at the back of the book I put "Melville, H., Moby Dick, published by ..." etc.

Have I plagiarised? Answer: yes, I have.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
I have no illusions of swaying James to do anything. I was simply wondering aloud when a moderator would do something about you for good, because clearly you aren't going to change your ways. I trust AN enough to know that when he says you're full of crap, you're full of crap. I can also verify this myself from your BS in the UFO subforum.

If you say so.

I don't claim to know anything about physics. However, knowing that you've been guilty of plagiarism multiple times before, I doubt you have much more of an understanding than I do.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
So do something about it.

8. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Ok.

Shall I be extremely precise then about which equations are mine? I shall make another post very soon containing only my equations to help destinguish which are mine and which are not?

Also, could you tell Jdawg to butt out of this thread since he has openly admitted to no knowledge of this at all. He's only in this thread for an arguement because I challenged him in the UFO thread.

9. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
these are specifically my equations

$\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta G_{ij}} = \box (g \phi)$ [1]

$\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta_{ij} k(\phi_{ij})} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4\theta G_{ij}}$

$\4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\rho = \nabla^2 \phi$

$\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \box \phi$

$\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}$

$\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}$

$\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{ G_{ij}}k(\phi)$

$\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}}((\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \vec{\theta}_{ij} \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}$

$\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \mu(\vec{\theta}_{ij}) = \rho$

$\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}}(\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \mu(\vec{\theta}_{ij}) \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}$

$-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2$

Now I cannot be held to blame for being... misty or tenebrous about which equations are mine.

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
To this, I would like to add one more derivation that came to me, the quantization of mass given by motz is $\sqrt{G}M$. To derive this from

$\4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\rho = \nabla^2 \phi$

Rearrange

$\frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta \rho}$

Take the square root then multiply by mass on both sides gives:

$\sqrt{\frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}}M = \sqrt{\frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta \rho}} M$

$= \sqrt{G}M$

11. ### khanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
130
Reiku, is it legally acceptable to combine your $\mu \nu$'s and $ij$'s like that? Is that an arc-length in the denominator of your above quoted equations? :shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Those might be some extremely advanced equations or they could be total hogwash, I don't know right now but I am definitely curious

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...

12. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,892

Good now we know which ones don't make any sense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

13. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Well, the subscripts $ij$ are in fact markers in a metric, they calculate the distance between particles. This is why in the force equation we have the force measured between two particles as $r_{ij}$. This notation has nothing to do with relativity.

The $\mu \nu$ notation does.

14. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Assuming my dimensions are correct and I haven't *******-up anywhere, they all make sense. For instance, you could perform a little trigonometry on the 8th equation for instance, or measure the force along a certain axis and the forces between the particles (being classically treated of course, as spheres.)

15. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,892
I find extremely odd that you have such indepth equations and concepts but nothing you have ever done in any of these threads goes beyond basic algebra - weird, huh?

Quick question I looked at the above equations and I have a question. So are you saying the density of a graviational field is mass/volume?

16. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Well that depends on what we consider as basic algebra. I do believe there is some matrix mechanics in there as well. However, sometimes you can find new relationships by tangling different relationships together. Sure, some of my operations are basic. You won't find any differentiation in there, or integrals. I'm sure if I sat and fiddled around with the equations for some time, I sure could try and come up with some different mathematical proposals. But I wanted to keep it simple like this becuase I felt the relationships where simple enough to be understood.

Anyway, yeah. The gravitational field strength is given by the (standard) equation as

$\box \phi = \rho$

Which means that a mass would depend on the field strength where we have the d'Alembertian Operator on the left (the box thing).

17. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,892
Huh, the mass changes with field strength?

It seems rather odd that the density of the gravitational field is mass/vol. Electirc field density is j/m^3.

18. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
The best way to view the equation is that the gravitational field strength changes proportionally with mass. This makes sense.

Put more mass in an area then you must be increasing the field strength, (or density in this case). The man who derived that equation was Gunnar Nordstrom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Nordström

19. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,699
So it's your equation but you're giving a reference?

Index structure is complete nonsense.

Index structure is complete nonsense.

Index structure is complete nonsense.

I also suspect you made the mistake of thinking that if $G_{ij}M^{ij} = \phi$ then $M^{ij} = \frac{\phi}{G_{ij}}$, ie that you just divide each side by $G_{ij}$. That isn't how tensors work at all, a mistake so cataclysmally bad it, once again, completely undermines any claim you make to understand anything university level. The problems persist in all the other expressions you give.

No, you can be blamed for repeatedly posting mathematically nonsense expressions while claiming you're doing something which you understand and which is viable, despite me giving you the chance to review what you've said for a fundamental mistake. That was the mistake. You not only missed it, you repeated it many times.

Thanks for proving my point about you.

Oh hang on, I just scrolled down in the thread! You have been wonderful enough to CONFIRM your mistake!

Well done, you don't know how to use a metric, something fundamental to relativity, including its uses in quantum field theory. If you have something like $G_{ij}M^{ij} = \phi$ then you cannot say $M^{ij} = \frac{\phi}{G_{ij}}$ because $G_{ij}M^{ij}$ is a single number, it's the trace of G multiplied by M, Try it with arbitary 2x2 matrices if you don't believe me. Even if you have $G_{ij}M^{jk} = N^{k}_{i}$ then to get G on the other side you have to multiply through by its inverse, $G^{ij}$ such that $G^{ij}G_{jk}M^{kl} = G^{ij}N^{l}_{j}$, which becomes $\delta^{i}_{k}M^{kl} = G^{ij}N^{l}_{j}$ which simplies to $M^{il} = G^{ij}N^{l}_{j}$.

This is the definition of how to use the metric. You cannot do anything in relativity if you don't know how to use the metric. Hell, you can't do anything in pretty much physics if you can't do matrix multiplication and know how to use matrix inverses.

I'd say that puts a fork in this thread. Reiku's been short with the truth, he's posted loads of mistakes he doesn't notice even when told "You've made a big mistake, look again", he repeated those mistakes and now he's nailed his colours to the mast and had his complete lack of understanding and his deep dishonesty exposed.

Lock the thread and let's all go home.

20. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I am not doing this in the manner you are Alphanumeric. I am using $ij$ notation as markers. They are not computing anything in any manner you are relating this to.

So no. It doesn't put a fork in anything.

21. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
and no... that [1] was actually when I started numbering my equations. It's not a reference. If the $ij$ notation has put you off AN, stop thinking I am doing anything in the way of tensor calculus. They were there on the variables where the strength between the two particles becomes significant. They are doing nothing more than reminding the reader... they are not performing any kind of influence on the [basic] algebra being performed.

22. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,699
Doesn't fly. You use the i,j notation as indices on the $\sigma_{ij}$ Pauli matrix object so you're using $G_{ij}$ as an array of values and they work by matrix algebra. My point stands, you haven't even done basic matrix algebra properly. Plus the index notation is still nonsense and inconsistent. It's known as the '3 eyed monster', where you repeat the same index more than twice and thus make the expression ambiguous and thus nonsense.

If that's your excuse then you use the same notation in different ways in the same sequence of expressions without explaining yourself. Furthermore, despite the fact the OP openned with default bookwork for half of it your excuse means you immediately jump into a non-standard use of a standard notation, right down to standard objects like $\sigma_{ij}$, without explaining yourself. That's a big no no.

Besides, it's not like your equations go anywhere. In some cases all you're doing it stating identities, akin to saying if A = XYZ then BA = BXYZ. That's all you're doing with the $\theta_{ij}$, $\hat{n}\cdot \sigma_{ij}$ objects, just writing them in terms of one another and then expanding out the second term as its matrix expression. Even if you hadn't botched all the algebraic formalism and managed to explain your notation you still accomplish nothing, It's your standard thing, you spew out a bunch of equations which amount to spinning your wheels and say "Look, I've got Gravigyro-Magnetic Equations with the Angle Between Spin States and a Force Equation ! I is a well good physicist!". No, you're just a dishonest hack who thinks if he copies enough identifies and expressions from other sources, jam them together and perhaps changes a symbol here and there to try to hide the fact he's copying things then perhaps it'll magically convince people he's not wasting his time.

Other people have weighed into the thread, with similar less than stellar comments about you. No one buys what you're doing. If you were making an honest effort to learn but were just thick as 2 short planks then people would have time for you but instead you're being dishonest as well as being not too bright so people get sick of it. I don't have to lobby James or anyone else to try to convince them you're dishonest, it's clear to any reader from our 'little exchanges' you're dishonest. There's no conspiracy against you, people reach their conclusions about you all by themselves. I chime in to make sure you don't sucker in any new people because clearly when you're left to your own devices you'll pile BS on BS, just as you did with your equation which you retroactively said "It's just a drunken evenings nonsense, don't pay any attention to it". You then went on to post half a dozen times about it, until you were called on it again. You're actively trying to deceive people and I'll point that out. If you put me on ignore I'll continue to point it out, you'll just have no chance to defend yourself. Though saying that even when I give you a chance you can't defend yourself or ever step up.

How about you give yourself a self imposed holiday for a fortnight? That way you can let this thread drop down the forum a bit and then you can start afresh with another thread of you spewing nonsense about some 'result' you've come up with using remedial flawed algebra. It'll at least forgo you having a holiday imposed on you. Go on, see if you've got that self control, see if you can go a whole fortnight without telling a blatantly obvious lie about your knowledge/understanding/'work'.

23. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
What do you mean it doesn't fly, I explained they where markers long before you came in here and actually looked at the work properly. Then you mistook G_ij for the tensor (which is normally written as) G_mu \nu, not only that, but you obviously had not followed the equations through. If you had, you would have realized I was not referring to tensor analysis on G, but rather it was Newtons Constant.

Secondly, my equation do go somewhere. They effectively measure the force along the axis of spin. I could do more with it all. You certainly haven't sat to see where the equations could go. You never even understood them before you posted.

As for the rest, of your post... pfft... irrelevant **** from yourself again. And you blame others for trolling, the hypocrisy.