Well I love the paper and it makes sense to me. I'm generally of the opinion that the singularity surrounding the big bang was akin to a school fish all swimming and thinking together as one to form a single mind GOD.
I'm Leaving Now
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
- Status
Has he left yet?
What physics? The thread you posted listing your maths knowledge is not beyond school level.
The essays you post try to use special relativity but you never use it properly. You misuse terms like 'metric' 'dimensionality' and 'complexity'. These aren't even complicated topics on the scale of things.
You talk about general relativity but you never do any maths related to it. As a previous post of mine explained in this thread, you don't even grasp concepts in it.
Quantum mechanics is a favourite topic of yours but you never do any properly, you just copy notation, very simple notation, from Wolf. Not once have you actually solved an equation from quantum mechanics. This[/ur] is the kind of thing which is an introductory course on the notation and methods you use. I bet you cannot do even the first example sheet of that course. Infact, I've asked you the first question of the first sheet before, you didn't do it. And I was actually worried you would because it only need you to know how to compute eigenvalues and eigenvectors, concepts from vector calculus, which you claim to understand.
You claimed to know about group theory and then you blanket copied and pasted from another website, of a crank no less. You claimed you write it out years ago and found an old handwritten copy of it but that doesn't explain a perfect copy of even line breaks! Nor does it show you understood the material. You couldn't tell it was crank material and you don't even recognise your own (or lack of) handwriting style. Can you do any group theory? I bet you cannot.
Thus, in all the topics which relate to the subjects of your essays, you demonstrate no understanding and even attempts at lying.
Which maths is that?
And you're a hypocrite, because you have NEVER answered a single question asked of you and expected of students doing beyond school level work. EVER. You also completely ignored my explaination of why your "Just sum E=mc^2" essay, as an example, was nonsense in the context of GR. Anyone who has studied mass and energy in GR knows this. Would you like me to provide lecture notes covering it?
As I just said, you have yet to show working understanding in any area of physics pertaining to your essay topics.
And we have TONS of essays by you to go on. We've observed your work for months, if not years, and it's all BS.
If you claim your maths is viable, would you care to spend a few minutes answering some questions? Literally minutes. You claim to spend days on your work so a few minutes isn't much to ask.
Have none of you ever actually read a paper? Look on www.arxiv.org at the theoretical physics section. Typically dozens of pages packed with maths. Reiku uses no maths in his 'paper' he just posted here and when he does attempt to do maths he falls flat on his face or posts BS.
reiku, I know nothing about you, but are you the same person (NeoNo.1) that posted the following on PhysOrgForums, back in September of 2007?
Seems very similar, yet slightly different...
"The title question might indeed seem strange, for how can consciousness cause the big bang? Before we answer this question (if it can at all be answered intuitively), consider the following quantum facts: You know, the universe has a nature which is mind-like. In fact, observation alone creates the thing being observed. If this is true, then we have a particular premise to make here. The universe is observer-dependant. The universe would be meaningless without an observer there, not only to define reality, but to create reality.
In fact, we tend to ask, 'If the universe requires us to create it, how did the universe form a few chronons after big bang?'"
Also, by Neo, here during July of 2007. Was this you as well?
Seems very similar, yet slightly different...
"The title question might indeed seem strange, for how can consciousness cause the big bang? Before we answer this question (if it can at all be answered intuitively), consider the following quantum facts: You know, the universe has a nature which is mind-like. In fact, observation alone creates the thing being observed. If this is true, then we have a particular premise to make here. The universe is observer-dependant. The universe would be meaningless without an observer there, not only to define reality, but to create reality.
In fact, we tend to ask, 'If the universe requires us to create it, how did the universe form a few chronons after big bang?'"
Also, by Neo, here during July of 2007. Was this you as well?
This is just hilarious! Reiku has the universal crackpot’s playbook and he’s running it line by line.
In a sad attempt to legitimize his crackpot ramblings, Reiku suggests that his nonsense will be “published” and that doing so….
…to all those who expose his nonsense.
Then he’ll do what many other crackpots before him have done – proclaim endlessly that he’s a “published” scientist.
Of course, he’ll conveniently neglect to mention that his “publication” is not a peer-reviewed scientific manuscript. The internationally accepted yardstick for valid science is having your work published in a peer-reviewed journal. When you manage to do that, Reiku, then we’ll all consider that you have delivered a slap in the face to all of us who have called you on your never-ending nonsense.
In the meantime, your “publication” means nothing with respect to the validity of any of your “work”. You might as well argue that there are orcs, hobbits and elves wandering around Earth as described in the publications of JRR Tolkien.
Funnily enogh, the goddamn variable ddn't show up. It's a Backwards E, and resembles new notation or use.Instead, it showed up like this... .... also, usages like |S> stems from Dirac Notation, so something else not found in high school education, or atleast, not in mine from what i remember.
Last edited:
Why doesn't the admin just let Reiku moderate the Cesspool? Then he can post as much of this... stuff... as he likes.
I disagree. You would be impressed about my new notations which reduce... oh never mind. My point being, is that the math is of a new era to unify ''what we feel, see, and experience as a whole,'' into some kind of mathematical outlook. My geometrical theory of consciousness does this quite well.
I don't wish to moderate anything. The [principles of moderation] cannot even be applied to cesspool activity.
That isn't an equation, it's an expression.
Proof you don't know even basic concepts in QM (this is something I teach to 2nd years).
$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi (x)\psi*(x)dx = |A|^{2} < \infty \quad \Rightarrow \phi = \frac{1}{A}\psi \; : \; \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \phi \phi^{\ast}dx = \frac{1}{|A|^{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi (x)\psi*(x)dx = 1$$
It has to be normalised so that the wave function is equivalent to a probability distribution.
They are.
Your notation is ill defined. And given you don't even know basic concepts in quantum mechanics and certainly not any maths details, it's stupid of you to complain about the mathematical rigour.
They are.
No, you don't.
Do you really think that attempting to show you understand what a probability distribution is means you show you're competant at quantum mechanics?
As I said, it's one of the first concepts you do in a course of QM and it's well within A Level work mathematically. You don't even get that maths right. For instance
$$\psi \; : \; |\psi|^{2} = 1$$ is not normalisable. Only elements in a Rigged Hilbert space but not the usual Hilbert space are allowed to be non-normalisable but represent a quantum wave function. $$e^{ipx}$$ is such an example.
Where have you shown you have actual working knowledge of quantum mechanics? Every time you try to give an equation you get it wrong. You've been a member here for thousands of posts. Show me just one where you do an actual quantum mechanics problem. Or a relativity one. Or a vector calculus one. Just one. Shouldn't be hard for you to find if you've done one.
Shut up Alphanumeric. I never got that kind of level of math at school. Secondly, what a big mistake to get a terminology wrong between an expression and an equation. Just terrible isn't it?
Secondly, you don't understand the equation i have displayed... so how can you say
''Do you really think that attempting to show you understand what a probability distribution ''
When you don't even know the new processes involved?
You're just a flamer, at heart. And at best, you came here to flame me. And don't even try to deny it, because you even admitted it, after lying about it.
Secondly, you don't understand the equation i have displayed... so how can you say
''Do you really think that attempting to show you understand what a probability distribution ''
When you don't even know the new processes involved?
You're just a flamer, at heart. And at best, you came here to flame me. And don't even try to deny it, because you even admitted it, after lying about it.
- Status