You didn't have to take physics lab class depending on you major.
edit-
unless you're taking both, physics and mathematics.
You didn't have to take physics lab class depending on you major.
not true. you're speaking from lack of experience.Mathematicians have no understanding of quantum physics in the deepest form, whereas mathematicians can challenge them using pure logic rather than theory.
Which is a lie - you did no such thingI called it the anti-hermitian,
This is pure gibberish. I suspect (but have no way of knowing) you might be referring to the trace, but even then I cannot parse the claima diagonally different value in a 4 x 4 matrix with negative components.
studied ? that's it ?I don't know how you could say that... I have studied physics for about 14 years... you?
If I understood what this means I might try. But I don'tIf you spend a bit of time working out my matrix pilot matrices, you can see it can solve for the negative and positive traces. But you likely won't.
What does it matter if it is or isn't? Just so long as we can try to understand what he says is enough.
so where did the 14 come from ?Not at all, I studied physics in college for 2 years, 1 year in a different place - for a continued learning. For your information. So please, don't assume you know me, or my education. I am here only to have intelligible conversations, if you can't do that with me, you along with a few others, will be ignored.
i'm sure this is exactly why you are here. you want to push your hypothesis that you probably claim is a theory, that does nothing except to attempt to re-establish an existing theory. this is common and pathetic.my matrix pilot matrices,
not true. you're speaking from lack of experience.
14 years of college, extended study and personal study. Trust me, it eats the time. But not the complextion.
again, where does the 14 come from.dr.nobody1stearl:
Not at all, I studied physics in college for 2 years, 1 year in a different place -for a continued learning.
oh, you mean " more like " i clicked on a bunch of links for the past ten years " and possibly do not understand most of what was clicked on/ " studied ". "personal study
Dr.Nobody1stEarl said: ↑
Mathematicians have no understanding of quantum physics in the deepest form, whereas mathematicians can challenge them using pure logic rather than theory.
krash661 said: ↑
not true. you're speaking from lack of experience.
it's a conclusion from being part of the reality.Your conclusion suggests aboslutes again. Bad thing when you exclude exceptions.
baiting ? baiting what ? i just re-posted your responses.No, you know fine well what I am saying. Baiting tactics won't work on me friend.
you used the word bating to fulfill your diversion.In psychology, you only artificially produce a double negative when you are hiding a positive truth.
Ironically, I've somewhat childishly related this to the simple operation $$(- \cdot - ) = +_{lie}$$.
Let's pick it up here (for the benefit of those who are interested but do not pretend to understand things they quite clearly do not)'I called it the anti-hermitian, a diagonally different value in a 4 x 4 matrix with negative components..
It's not a contradiction but a statement of logic. If material systems define change, and happens in space, this is different to space itself being a dimension of time. Change happens in space, it is not a space dimension itself.
Right, because, obviously, movement along a single dimension (taking time) is impossible, neh?Oh contraire dear friend, we would have no definition of time without the three dimensions of space, which makes it a very fundamental difference. We need space to define an imaginary space which exists 90 degrees off the real spacetime triangle.
Without time, we would have no space?
Oh contraire dear friend, we would have no definition of time without the three dimensions of space, which makes it a very fundamental difference. We need space to define an imaginary space which exists 90 degrees off the real spacetime triangle.
And Einstein later said after Minkowski made this statement said the ''Mathematicians had butchered his theory as he knew it.''
That says it all in my book. He later became more receptive towards it, probably to exploit monetary values.
In other words your statements were less than accurate.No but moving in one spatial dimension is boring,
I'll give you that one but but not paddo's.