Merged Studying Sharma's equation on Linear Field Equations

The irony. You speak about ''scientists'' as if they have been ''flooding in.''

You are not a scientist. I can tell. It's so obvious, and if you tell me you are, i know you are fibbing. There has been no credible scientific evidence against my side. This is obvious to anyone who has followed this thread, and unequally, i have provided evidence which counteracts any of the claims brought henceforth.

So, there is an irony here, the kind i am used to. A bunch of guys floating around saying i am wrong without any credible evidence, despite again what i have shown, (linked).

p.s. All my essays are long.
 
By the way, the kinematics where of just cause. Virtual particles have a kinetic energy, but naturally, it is mathematically expressed with a negative sign, (this is even taught to people who haven't worked on the Hamiltonian). The kinetic energy then can be negative - If you don't believe me, then i ask you to read up on ''virtual particles'' on wiki. It will confirm what i said.
 
Singularitarian said:
By the way, the kinematics where of just cause. Virtual particles have a kinetic energy, but naturally, it is mathematically expressed with a negative sign, (this is even taught to people who haven't worked on the Hamiltonian). The kinetic energy then can be negative - If you don't believe me, then i ask you to read up on ''virtual particles'' on wiki. It will confirm what i said.
Click to expand...

What was your initial essay actually about, again? It mentions neither virtual particles, nor a Dirac sea of real ones.
 
My first essay was an extensive report on time theory, and essentially, the time-problem of physics.

I also proved that for quantization of time, there is no distinction between the past and the future than that with the present time, and initiated the Liebniz Law to associate them in such a manner.
 
Anyway, i wasn't even finished with this thread. Not initially anyway, i had wave equations for gravitational moments in its innate mass.
 
Singularitarian said:
No it's not about religion actually, but brief mentions, maybe at least three times throughout the whole book. Most of it is to do with scientists he met, and how he came to understand quantum physics can model a soul for the observer.
Click to expand...

It's about souls... but it's not about religion. I didn't think it could be done, but your credibility is managing to slip even further. Well done.
 
Singularitarian said:
There has been no credible scientific evidence against my side. This is obvious to anyone who has followed this thread, and unequally, i have provided evidence which counteracts any of the claims brought henceforth.
Click to expand...

As someone following this thread, you are wholly mistaken in your statement.
 
Singularitarian said:
I've solved plenty Hamiltonians.
Click to expand...

Can I politely ask if this was as part of your HND?

Could I also trouble you, when you have a moment, to reply to my previous questions (which I present here to save you hunting through the thread)?



"Singularitarian, would it be fair to ask if you understand the relationship between symmetry breaking and violating conservation "laws"?"


"I would love to see a direct quote from a paper of his though that suggests he has evidence or good reason for breaking of conservation of energy."
 
Singularitarian said:
No it's not about religion actually, but brief mentions, maybe at least three times throughout the whole book. Most of it is to do with scientists he met, and how he came to understand quantum physics can model a soul for the observer.
Click to expand...


Bolding mine.
Contradict yourself much?

Souls don't exist outside religious beliefs. If it's about modeling a soul, then it's about religion.
 
Singularitarian said:
The irony. You speak about ''scientists'' as if they have been ''flooding in.''

You are not a scientist. I can tell. It's so obvious, and if you tell me you are, i know you are fibbing. There has been no credible scientific evidence against my side. This is obvious to anyone who has followed this thread, and unequally, i have provided evidence which counteracts any of the claims brought henceforth.

So, there is an irony here, the kind i am used to. A bunch of guys floating around saying i am wrong without any credible evidence, despite again what i have shown, (linked).

p.s. All my essays are long.
Click to expand...

Find one post in any one thread of your's where someone agrees with you. Good luck!

You've had many real scientists try and help you in your threads. That you are incapable of recognizing them speaks volumes.
 
Singularitarian said:
My first essay was an extensive report on time theory, and essentially, the time-problem of physics.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that one, I meant the one at the head of this thread.

The one where E=-mc^2 actually occurs, but which (despite your use of these things to justify the negative sign) has nothing to do with either the Dirac sea, fermions, virtual particles, or the Uncertainty Principle. Why is the negative solution used in your thing?
 
DazzaD said:
Can I politely ask if this was as part of your HND?

Could I also trouble you, when you have a moment, to reply to my previous questions (which I present here to save you hunting through the thread)?



"Singularitarian, would it be fair to ask if you understand the relationship between symmetry breaking and violating conservation "laws"?"


"I would love to see a direct quote from a paper of his though that suggests he has evidence or good reason for breaking of conservation of energy."
Click to expand...

Who is haunting who? You are only troubling yourself when you infer to me doing something when commanded. If you where my professor, yeh, i'd have to, but not because someone here, who i have never met before, should i bow down to his wish. I am not a skivy of information.
 
ben m said:
I didn't mean that one, I meant the one at the head of this thread.

The one where E=-mc^2 actually occurs, but which (despite your use of these things to justify the negative sign) has nothing to do with either the Dirac sea, fermions, virtual particles, or the Uncertainty Principle. Why is the negative solution used in your thing?
Click to expand...

Edited by Gaspode: 
Edited for civility


I've linked you to a correct page describing (E=-Mc^2) as a possible solution. Going back to the reference i gave you ''spiritual universe,'' written by a man who has a PhD in physics tells us that the vacuum has a quantity (E=-MC^2) for a particle. If you add up all the real energy in the vacuum, (He tells us) then paradoxically, we have an energy equally zero:

latex.php


But still a massive amount of energy still persists. I am sick of teaching you guys about this. Grow up, and learn to admit when you are wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Molinaro said:
Find one post in any one thread of your's where someone agrees with you. Good luck!

You've had many real scientists try and help you in your threads. That you are incapable of recognizing them speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
That seems almost circular in logic.-

You know fine well people come here to argue. Find me one post where people don't, and make it extensive please.
 
I can prove Sharma correct

For [latex]E=Mc^2[/latex] to be equivalant, it requires quantum processes to be linear, without any curves in the process. Such a curve, if any experimental evidence was shown to show such a difference, would remain the equation to be approximated, as some of the equivalized energy can be reserved towards the production of other energies.

The proof:

At sufficiently high enough temperatures, which occur usually inside of stars and other gasseous stellar objects and equally the same produced inside of hydrogen bombs, light nuclei fuse together to form heavier one.

In a series of four quantum mechanical steps, [latex]H^1[/latex] nuclei fuse to make a [latex]He^4[/latex] nucleus. The mass of the of the [latex]He^4[/latex] is slightly less than the mass of the [latex]H^1[/latex], and this lessness is released due to [latex]E=Mc^2[/latex].
For reference:

Introducing, The Universe, Felix Pirani and Christian Roche, 1997

The process shows a change in mass is equivalent to some change in the energy, staisfying Sharma's equation.
 
I Ratant said:
And the reason anyone might care about this is?
Click to expand...

The OP has been posting gibberish about this on a number of threads. Apparently he's tired of being soundly thrashed on THOSE threads and wanted to open a new thread to be soundly thrashed upon.
 
drkitten said:
The OP has been posting gibberish about this on a number of threads. Apparently he's tired of being soundly thrashed on THOSE threads and wanted to open a new thread to be soundly thrashed upon.
Click to expand...


Thrashed?

Either i need to go into a mental institution, or you haven't been keeping up on who is thrashing who here, because i can name five instances off the top of my head, where people here have got things drastically wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom