People keep saying “show us the math”. Sure no worries, here it is……..

0 = 1 over the square root of -1

This is a spinor equation. I am yet to properly familiarise myself with contextual spinor theory, but this has been provided on the off chance that one of the few people who understand this area happen along…….

oops, forgot to qualify,

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1 = negative angular momentum and the square root of -1 = positive angular momentuum…..

Riff-in-Thyme said:

oops, forgot to qualify,

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1 = negative angular momentum and -1 = positive angular momentuum…..

1/j = -j

That’s it.

sibeen said:

1/j = -j

That’s it.

Orly?

sibeen said:

1/j = -j

That’s it.

how did you get that from 0 = 1 over the square root of -1? I’m sure it makes sense but this is where I have to start understanding calculus efficiently…..

‘Coz we all like to play equations without any prior knowledge

poikilotherm said:

‘Coz we all like to play equations without any prior knowledge

step off mate, you don’t know what you are talking about here……

>>>This is a spinor equation…..>>>no its not…it’s an identity!

>>> but this has been provided on the off chance that one of the few people who understand this area happen along…….>>> and yes I do!

FYI

1/j
= 1/
= 1/
= (-1)^(-1/2)
= *
= *(1/-1)
= –
= – SQRT
= -j

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

regards

macx

macx said:

FYI

1/j
= 1/
= 1/
= (-1)^(-1/2)
= *
= *(1/-1)
= –
= – SQRT
= -j

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

regards

macx

you aren’t going to qualify this reference?

holy crap! MACX!!!

waves

Riff-in-Thyme said:

poikilotherm said:

‘Coz we all like to play equations without any prior knowledge

step off mate, you don’t know what you are talking about here……

Well you’ve been told.

OCDC said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

poikilotherm said:

‘Coz we all like to play equations without any prior knowledge

step off mate, you don’t know what you are talking about here……

Well you’ve been told.

IKR. Seems there’s two of us then…

macx said:

>>> but this has been provided on the off chance that one of the few people who understand this area happen along…….>>> and yes I do!

can you tell me a good place to start here. I was looking at the Dirac equation next and the rest of the material seems a bit obscure….

OCDC said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

poikilotherm said:

‘Coz we all like to play equations without any prior knowledge

step off mate, you don’t know what you are talking about here……

Well you’ve been told.

oh. I’m very sorry. I didn’t realise that was a link to a helpful place. Really very sorry poik. :/

poikilotherm said:

OCDC said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

step off mate, you don’t know what you are talking about here……

Well you’ve been told.

IKR. Seems there’s two of us then…

:/ sorry. people have been picking on me……

Riff-in-Thyme said:

how did you get that from 0 = 1 over the square root of -1?

As 0 does not equal 1 over the square root of -1, then I obviously didn’t.

1/j = -j, it’s not that difficult

1/j x j/j = j/j^2

j^2 = -1 so j/j^2 = j/-1 = -j

can we stop this “j” gibber-gabber

>>>you aren’t going to qualify this reference?

No requirement…it is nothing other than a trivial piece of algebra.

Here…have a read…

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

You might want to look up Dirac and Clifford Algebra to get you going.

Regards

macx

diddly-squat said:

can we stop this “j” gibber-gabber

i see what you mean.

diddly-squat said:

can we stop this “j” gibber-gabber

I suspect I’ve currently got support in this matter.

blows raspberry

OCDC said:

diddly-squat said:

can we stop this “j” gibber-gabber

i see what you mean.

ha

>>>

holy crap! MACX!!!

waves

<><><><><><><><>

Returns wave.

{does that imply a phase shift?}

:))

macx

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

can we stop this “j” gibber-gabber

I suspect I’ve currently got support in this matter.

blows raspberry

‘currently’ – I see what you did there…

I guess I just couldn’t ‘resist’

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

how did you get that from 0 = 1 over the square root of -1?

As 0 does not equal 1 over the square root of -1, then I obviously didn’t.

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum and -1= positive angular momentum

the equation doesn’t measure numbers….

macx said:

>>>

holy crap! MACX!!!

waves

<><><><><><><><>

Returns wave.

{does that imply a phase shift?}

:))

macx

being on this thread that is mandatory…….

I gotta finish a set of stairs but I don’t wanna go back to work! I wanna study spinors. help!!! :/

>>>I gotta finish a set of stairs but I don’t wanna go back to work! I wanna study spinors. help!!! :/

That’s nice.

How about starting with an understanding of elementary algebra…that would help!

macx

hi macx. good to see you still kicking.

macx said:

>>>I gotta finish a set of stairs but I don’t wanna go back to work! I wanna study spinors. help!!! :/

That’s nice.

How about starting with an understanding of elementary algebra…that would help!

macx

how about you paint my stairs while I sort that out?

:P

macx said:

>>>I gotta finish a set of stairs but I don’t wanna go back to work! I wanna study spinors. help!!! :/

That’s nice.

How about starting with an understanding of elementary algebra…that would help!

macx

How about X goes and finds its own fucking values..

Im sick of trying to find the values for X

Dropbear said:

macx said:

>>>I gotta finish a set of stairs but I don’t wanna go back to work! I wanna study spinors. help!!! :/

That’s nice.

How about starting with an understanding of elementary algebra…that would help!

macx

How about X goes and finds its own fucking values..

Im sick of trying to find the values for X

snort :)

Riff-in-Thyme said:

edit required

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1 = negative angular momentum(compression) and -1 = positive angular momentum(expansion)

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

edit required

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1 = negative angular momentum(compression/fermion vector) and -1 = positive angular momentum(expansion-something something)

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

edit required

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1 = negative angular momentum(compression/fermion spinor vector) and -1 = positive angular momentum(expansion-something something)

macx said:

>>>This is a spinor equation…..>>>no its not…it’s an identity!

>>> but this has been provided on the off chance that one of the few people who understand this area happen along…….>>> and yes I do!

FYI

1/j
= 1/
= 1/
= (-1)^(-1/2)
= *
= *(1/-1)
= –
= – SQRT
= -j

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

regards

macx

its the ghost of Christmas past

wookiemeister said:

its the ghost of Christmas past

so you are the ghost of the present?

further edit…..

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum(compression/fermion spinor vector) and -1= positive angular momentum(expansion/???) being the balance that separates the forces…..

Riff-in-Thyme said:

further edit…..

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum(compression/fermion spinor vector) and -1= positive angular momentum(expansion/???) being the balance that separates the forces…..

c = i by E, apparently……….

Riff-in-Thyme said:

c = i by E when -1 = m

the quoting function in this thread has just died of shame.

So this, as I read it, is a thesis statement. I guess that makes it an application to study the subject. I don’t have to have the entire theory available when I am only making an application for permission(being confirmation of an appropriate study) to study a subject do I?

Quote Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny View Post
(E =mc^2 + ©fermion spinor = GR)

+

(0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum(compression/fermion spinor vector) and -1= positive angular momentum(expansion(m)) being the balance that separates the forces….. or,

c = i by E(when -1 = m) = SR + m spinor)

=

united theory…..
which more, do I need?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

So this, as I read it, is a thesis statement. I guess that makes it an application to study the subject. I don’t have to have the entire theory available when I am only making an application for permission(being confirmation of an appropriate study) to study a subject do I?

Quote Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny View Post
(E =mc^2 + ©fermion spinor = GR)

+

(0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum(compression/fermion spinor vector) and -1= positive angular momentum(expansion(m)) being the balance that separates the forces….. or,

c = i by E(when -1 = m) + m spinor = SR)

=

united theory…..
which more, do I need?

fixed

final edit….

(E =mc^2 + c(-AM)fermion spinor) = GR)

+

(0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum(compression/fermion spinor vector) and -1= positive angular momentum(expansion(m)) being the indivisibles of angular momentum expression that separates the forces….. or,

c = i by E(when -1 = m) + m(+AM spinor) = SR)

=

united theory…..

what more do I need to show to have this accepted as a thesis?

Quote Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny View Post

(E =mc^2 + ©fermion spinor = GR)

+

(0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum(compression/fermion spinor vector) and -1= positive angular momentum(expansion(m)) being the indivisible angular momentum expressions that separates the forces….. or,

c = i by E(when -1 = m) + m spinor = SR)

=

united theory…..

Riff-in-Thyme said:

what more do I need to show to have this accepted as a thesis statement?

Quote Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny View Post

(E =mc^2 + ©fermion spinor = GR)

+

(0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum(compression/fermion spinor vector) and -1= positive angular momentum(expansion(m)) being the indivisible angular momentum expressions that separates the forces….. or,

c = i by E(when -1 = m) + m spinor = SR)

=

unified theory…..

final fix

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/special-general-relativity/5130-unifying-gr-sr.html#post9262

Near qualified to do that quote for the painting job now are we :)

transition said:

Near qualified to do that quote for the painting job now are we :)

I don’t quote on jobs anymore. I only do painting as a favor to mates. That way I do the job the way it is supposed to be done and I don’t have to give a crap about money related time restraints……

did you know…..

that the rule, i before E except after c, works better as a law of physics than one of English?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

did you know…..

that the rule, i before E except after c, works better as a law of physics than one of English?

only when -1 = m, of course….

give it up mate. go seek some help.

>>>give it up mate. go seek some help.

+1

macx

I don’t even understand what this thread is all about.

ChrispenEvan said:

give it up mate. go seek some help.

it’s not just that… it’s understanding that coming up with a theory of gravity is more than just writing out a few nonsense ‘definitions’ and saying that “0 = 1 over the square root of -1”

Riff I’ve read back few a bit of your stuff and I can see you are not Zarkov, but mate, if you really want to understand this stuff (and I mean if you really want to pursue study in theoretical physics) then you are going to have to go back to the beginning and essentially start from high school level.

party_pants said:

I don’t even understand what this thread is all about.

Mainly about diddly not playing his part as one of the fraternity of engineers!

diddly-squat said:

ChrispenEvan said:

give it up mate. go seek some help.

it’s not just that… it’s understanding that coming up with a theory of gravity is more than just writing out a few nonsense ‘definitions’ and saying that “0 = 1 over the square root of -1”

Riff I’ve read back few a bit of your stuff and I can see you are not Zarkov, but mate, if you really want to understand this stuff (and I mean if you really want to pursue study in theoretical physics) then you are going to have to go back to the beginning and essentially start from high school level.

yep, aahh ta? I think KJW might help where I’m missing stuff tweedles…..

I think KJW might help where I’m missing stuff tweedles…..

judging from what i have read on other science forums i don’t think you have anything that anybody can help you with. this includes KJW.

ChrispenEvan said:

I think KJW might help where I’m missing stuff tweedles…..

judging from what i have read on other science forums i don’t think you have anything that anybody can help you with. this includes KJW.

you get my private messages do you?

no. i read what people who actually know maths and science. you don’t have a clue.

let me say something here that would get me chastised there. you do not know where I have been, where I am coming from, or when I might be coming, if that is what I chose to do. come onto my threads and you’ll be tipped off time and time again. This ain’t no fair carpet ride little lassy

Riff-in-Thyme said:

let me say something here that would get me chastised there. you do not know where I have been, where I am coming from, or when I might be coming, if that is what I chose to do. come onto my threads and you’ll be tipped off time and time again. This ain’t no fairy carpet ride little lassy

you have a mental problem. shit others who have only known you for a few days have pointed that out. you stupid threats mean nothing to me. you have not a clue what you are doing. you don’t know maths you don’t know science. and every time you post one of your puerile threads i will comment.

ChrispenEvan said:

you have a mental problem. shit others who have only known you for a few days have pointed that out. you stupid threats mean nothing to me. you have not a clue what you are doing. you don’t know maths you don’t know science. and every time you post one of your puerile threads i will comment.

good. There will be comic relief…..

you are the one everyone is laughing at.

ChrispenEvan said:

you are the one everyone is laughing at.

what is wrong with that? isn’t it the best exercise to what you aren’t getting?

i prefer to have people laugh with me….but you aren’t normal so i guess normal rules don’t apply.

ChrispenEvan said:

i prefer to have people laugh with me….but you aren’t normal so i guess normal rules don’t apply.

Yeah I have a pretty good guide for normal going. Your concerns are noted, I won’t stray far enough off that to get lost up my own butthole. I know cause I’ve tried even without the guide and I just can’t get there. anything else you “NEEEEEED” me to know?

nah, you can go now. remember i’ll be here to point out your rubbish whenever you post it.

ChrispenEvan said:

nah, you can go now. remember i’ll be here to point out your rubbish whenever you post it.

I just vacuumed….

gee. ask what the torque covariant/efficient between the expansionof space and terminal velocity is and you get told you are discussing your own ideas and not following instruction. Anyone here who can show me how to put that sum together? They obviously think they are too clever for me over there at the moment….

Riff-in-Thyme said:

gee. ask what the torque covariant/efficient between the expansionof space and terminal velocity is and you get told you are discussing your own ideas and not following instruction. Anyone here who can show me how to put that sum together? They obviously think they are too clever for me over there at the moment….

i’ve only been trying to say that the covariant is E = mc^2 and the co-efficient is c = i(E) when -1 = m

is that right?