# Is this real maths or somebody winding me up?

If you can calm down.

Would it be possible in an imaginary matrix i , for the internal energy of the matrix i , only be positive in polarity?

Wheres the gravity?

Wheres the strong nuclear force?

Where is the electrostatic binding force?

My conclusion, is that the matrix would disperse by repulsive force?

The dimensions of matrix i :

Previously, the best measurement of the diameter of theproton was 0.877±0.007 femtometers (m) and this measurement measured it to be 0.8418±0.0007 fm. A femtometer is 10-15 meters.

Last edited:
Would it be possible in an imaginary matrix i , for the internal energy of the matrix i , only be positive in polarity?
No, because your sentence is nonsense.

Wheres the gravity?

Wheres the strong nuclear force?

Where is the electrostatic binding force?
Everywhere.

My conclusion, is that the matrix would disperse by repulsive force?
More nonsense.

No, because your sentence is nonsense.

Everywhere.

More nonsense.
OH boy.........The discussion is an imaginary matrix i, please try again .....or explain why it is nonsense?

You do know what i is?

You do know what i is?
BwS, this will just go on and on. It's just attention-seeking on his part.

What he will do is part answer but, then lob in a couple of further nonsensical concepts. The game is to see how long he can keep you coming back for more. I guarantee you will not get out of this feeling you have dispelled any misconceptions. Theorist is the Great Grimpen Mire of science forums. Utter waste of time.

BwS, this will just go on and on. It's just attention-seeking on his part.

What he will do is part answer but, then lob in a couple of further nonsensical concepts. The game is to see how long he can keep you coming back for more. I guarantee you will not get out of this feeling you have dispelled any misconceptions. Theorist is the Great Grimpen Mire of science forums. Utter waste of time.
Stop trolling this thread please, you are hampering my education, I will report you if you continue being unproductive in your posts.

Stop trolling this thread please, you are hampering my education, I will report you if you continue being unproductive in your posts.

Unlike you , I would rather discuss issues rather than get a poster banned. You are not using profound language so I feel you could be sorted out enough to fit in. Let us start with forum policies on posted not related science content in the main section.

Do you think your inappropriate attitude and none science posts should be allowed to continue in main section ?

I would give you your first warning if I was a moderator. I would also give myself a first warning just for responding to your ''bait''.

Talk to me, don't talk to me, either way , maybe somebody is 'listening''. I am not this person who ''they'' claim I am.

Are you really going to let somebodies comment dictate the people who you should and should not speak too?

I am not an intention seeker, I am bored like most. I find science a good conversation, better than watching the soaps. I have friends here all the time, they sit and watch the soaps lol. They moan at me for being on science forums, but they are my friends and they understand.

OH boy.........The discussion is an imaginary matrix i, please try again .....or explain why it is nonsense?
It is beyond your ability, it is nonsense.

This a discussion forum not a school. Maybe if you could go to school for a while you would be able to join in an intelligent conversation.

It is beyond your ability, it is nonsense.
It's beyond my ability or it's nonsense? It sounds to me , like you think you are smarter than me and I am not your equal. That is your choice and a part of suffering delusions of grandeur. But nether-less, I treat all people as my equal so I am willing to give a discussion a go with you or anybody who wishes to discuss. The subject material is not difficult to understand .

i=[] is the topic , which means we can begin the discussion with an empty imaginary (i) Matrix .

Does anyone reading this , not understand this?

Our function of the empty matrix will be ƒ:i→n which is a linear map from 0 dimensions to any dimensional length.

However, the function of the matrix is to expand from 0 to n in a split second of dispersal of the contents, which is a mono pole internal energy.

Last edited:
amber said:
i=[] is the topic , which means we can begin the discussion with an empty imaginary (i) Matrix .
$$i = \sqrt {-1}$$. Doesn't look much like a matrix.

An empty matrix doesn't sound like it's a matrix either; even the 0-matrix isn't empty because every element is 0.
You've taken a concept, the imaginary number, and tried to say it's a completely different concept, a matrix. I guarantee you can't show how that works, simply because it doesn't work.

But all you've managed so far here at this forum is some kind of totally bereft-of-logic arguments. You seem to just be tossing mathematical and physical concepts around, wondering "is this connected to this, maybe it is if I say so", but you clearly don't actually grasp the concepts even at a fundamental level.

What is a matrix? It depends. Systems of linear equations (in one or more variables) can be described by matrices. A matrix of numbers is a vector space--it has eigenvectors and eigenvalues (which are given by solving for the one or more variables in terms of the system of linear equations, sometimes known as simultaneous linear equations).
Regardless of the contents of a matrix, it always has rows and columns, hence indices. The imaginary root of $$x^2 + 1 = 0$$ is i, not a matrix.

It looks like your early education in maths has failed to yield anything useful for you, you seem to understand very little about the subject.

p.s. just to complicate things a bit: any complex number including 0 + i can be written as a 2 x 2 (non-empty) matrix (!). In general if z = a + bi, then [z] =
.

The negation of b in the first row "takes care" of the imaginary part of a + bi. For the case a = 0, b = 1, well I'll let you work it out.

Last edited:
It's beyond my ability or it's nonsense?
It is nonsense and it is beyond your ability to understand why.

I say it is beyond your ability based on your posting history.

It is nonsense and it is beyond your ability to understand why.

I say it is beyond your ability based on your posting history.

It might be worth pointing out from the original post you can't wind up anything / anybody which is internally broken

Or it / they have flat batteries. No power to run one brain cell. No hope of recharging since no matter how hard you try to plug in or how many times you just cannot make a connection

It sounds to me , like you think you are smarter than me and I am not your equal.

i=[] is the topic , which means we can begin the discussion with an empty imaginary (i) Matrix .

The OP is free to offer his own thoughts, regardless of their attachment to anything vaguely math-like. It's not like we can stop him.

I've reported the thread to have it moved to Free Thoughts, if not Cesspooled.

Let nature take its course.

$$i = \sqrt {-1}$$. Doesn't look much like a matrix.

An empty matrix doesn't sound like it's a matrix either; even the 0-matrix isn't empty because every element is 0.

Thank you for your reply, I respect your maths knowledge and understand I am not your equal in math. I will reply to the rest later today as it is 5.30 am here and I have not been bed yet. I have quoted the above, an empty matrix has 0 dimensions , every element is 0 in the empty matrix.

The Empty Matrix

An empty matrix has one or more dimensions that are equal to zero. A two-dimensional matrix with both dimensions equal to zero appears in the MATLAB® application as []. The expression A = [] assigns a 0-by-0 empty matrix to A.

https://uk.mathworks.com/help/matlab/math/empty-matrices-scalars-and-vectors.html#f1-86384

I understand I was not using (i ) in context to what you would use in vectors, I am using it to express an imaginary matrix, you know like an imaginary friend. I was expressing that the matrix is a thought experiment and imaginary , i.e i = []

I can change it back to (a) if it helps. a=[]

You seem to just be tossing mathematical and physical concepts around, wondering "is this connected to this, maybe it is if I say so", but you clearly don't actually grasp the concepts even at a fundamental level.

I am not tossing the concepts around at all, they are my abstract versions that do not use values. I explained this already . To me , I understand my concepts very well and if only I could get somebody who is good at maths, i.e like yourself, to put the correct maths to my opinion/notions.
My opinions and notions are based on our information, it is not made up nonsense without any foundation for support.

Why can't you just help me with the maths? Maxwell helped Faraday, Planck helped Einstein, why can't one of you help me?

I believe I have the answer to gravity mechanism, are you as scientists really going to just ignore this because I am not as well educated as you?

And on a final note before I go bed, what ever happened to the creation of new maths anyway?

I believe I have sort of created a language with maths symbols, its irony that only I understand it.

Anyway I will consider what you have wrote in advice and correct information and try to learn it.

In the mean time does anyone know how to transpose a=[] t0 a=[n] in a split second, in maths terms?

What would be the correct function mapping?

After the advice of the post and a little more thought, I will throw out

ƒ:a→a?

Would that be correct?

Last edited:
No. Amber has a point .You are smarter. Don't be shy and modist

Let nature take its course.

I find most times I get that said to me I find myself flushing something away soon after

Here's hoping for the same result

No. Amber has a point .You are smarter. Don't be shy and modist
Oh not me!

The poster was referring to origin. (post 153)