Ghost Whiner - I need your input on this theory [Archive]

Vinny Rafarino

1st July 2003, 06:54

Ghost Whiner,

I've been communicating with theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs in regards to the relationship of relativity to quantum theory; in essence as faster than light is possible under quantum theory yet impossible under relativity, would a new unified field theory then make it possible to tavel faster than light inder all circumstances, not simply within a quantum system? Relativity's curvature of space-time when surrounding incredibly dense matter (or incredibly large masses) should play a key factor as light being both wave and particle should react in conjuction with the curvature.

We must also consider (but not yet apply) that inflation theory predicts faster than light travel prior to the development of matter and radiation in the early life of the universe. How then can inflation theory be applied to a universe with a near critical density of matter? Would not the matter itself in affect actually prohibit inflation theory from being re-applied? (as it would violate relativity) Could it then be possible to theorise that relativity's curvature of space-time may provide enough re-distribution of matter over the curvature to allow for inflation theory to be re-applied outside of the initial stages of the big bang but only when contained inside a large enough gravitation field to curve space time? (Possibly even help to fill the gap between quantum and relativity theories respectively)

Sachs actually had a unified field theory published in 1997, I found it to be very unorthodox, one particular portion especially. I will provide that portion to you now with the "especially unorthodox" highlighted in bold;

"In earlier papers it was argued that the symmetry group which underlies general relativity theory - the Einstein group - is a 16-parameter Lie group. That is, this is a group of continuous, analytic transformations, characterized by the 16 essential parameters, ¶xm’/¶xn, distributed continuously and analytically in space-time.

The symmetry group that underlies the covariance of Einstein’s field equations includes the discrete reflections in space and time, which are not in the covariance requirement of relativity theory - thus, the representations of the group that underlies Einstein’s tensor equations are reducible. When the reflections are removed from the group, its representations change to the irreducible form and Einstein’s equations factorize to quaternion formalism."

I think perhaps he may be on to something however, why would a discrepency this huge in Einstein's field equations vs. his theoretical equations be overlooked until 1997? Does this make any sense at all? Or is it a simple excuse to reduce the tensor equations of relativity to a point where the theory itself ceases to be relative and can then be combined with the other fields of gravity?

I have virtually this same post on another board. A comrade and I are having this same discussion. However you seem to have a good grasp on theoretical physics, so I wanted your opinion.

Here is his equations supporting the above highlighted portion;

"The new metrical field is the four-vector, qm(x), whose components are each quaternion-valued, rather than being real number-valued. Thus, the factorized metrical field has 4 x 4 = 16 independent components, rather than 10 (as it should, in accordance with the 16-parameter Lie group). The factorized form of the metrical field equations were then shown to be the 16 independent field relations as follows:

(1/4)(Krlql + ql Krl+) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

The quaternion equation conjugate to this one (its space or time reflection) is:

-(1/4)(Krl+ql + ql Krl) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

where the ‘spin curvature’ tensor Krl will be defined below and

R = (1/2)(Krlql qr - qr ql Krl + ql Krl+qr - qr Krl+q l)

is the Riemann scalar curvature in quaternion form. With this new formalism, the invariant differential of the curved space-time is a quaternion-valued scalar"

Highly unorthodox.

What is your opinion?

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 9:47 am on July 2, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

1st July 2003, 07:18

I also welcome anyone else's opinion as well.

kelvin

3rd July 2003, 05:58

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:54 am on July 1, 2003
Ghost Whiner,

I've been communicating with theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs in regards to the relationship of relativity to quantum theory; in essence as faster than light is possible under quantum theory yet impossible under relativity, would a new unified field theory then make it possible to tavel faster than light inder all circumstances, not simply within a quantum system? Relativity's curvature of space-time when surrounding incredibly dense matter (or incredibly large masses) should play a key factor as light being both wave and particle should react in conjuction with the curvature.

We must also consider (but not yet apply) that inflation theory predicts faster than light travel prior to the development of matter and radiation in the early life of the universe. How then can inflation theory be applied to a universe with a near critical density of matter? Would not the matter itself in affect actually prohibit inflation theory from being re-applied? (as it would violate relativity) Could it then be possible to theorise that relativity's curvature of space-time may provide enough re-distribution of matter over the curvature to allow for inflation theory to be re-applied outside of the initial stages of the big bang but only when contained inside a large enough gravitation field to curve space time? (Possibly even help to fill the gap between quantum and relativity theories respectively)

Sachs actually had a unified field theory published in 1997, I found it to be very unorthodox, one particular portion especially. I will provide that portion to you now with the "especially unorthodox" highlighted in bold;

"In earlier papers it was argued that the symmetry group which underlies general relativity theory - the Einstein group - is a 16-parameter Lie group. That is, this is a group of continuous, analytic transformations, characterized by the 16 essential parameters, ¶xm’/¶xn, distributed continuously and analytically in space-time.

The symmetry group that underlies the covariance of Einstein’s field equations includes the discrete reflections in space and time, which are not in the covariance requirement of relativity theory - thus, the representations of the group that underlies Einstein’s tensor equations are reducible. When the reflections are removed from the group, its representations change to the irreducible form and Einstein’s equations factorize to quaternion formalism."

I think perhaps he may be on to something however, why would a discrepency this huge in Einstein's field equations vs. his theoretical equations be overlooked until 1997? Does this make any sense at all? Or is it a simple excuse to reduce the tensor equations of relativity to a point where the theory itself ceases to be relative and can then be combined with the other fields of gravity?

I have virtually this same post on another board. A comrade and I are having this same discussion. However you seem to have a good grasp on theoretical physics, so I wanted your opinion.

Here is his equations supporting the above highlighted portion;

"The new metrical field is the four-vector, qm(x), whose components are each quaternion-valued, rather than being real number-valued. Thus, the factorized metrical field has 4 x 4 = 16 independent components, rather than 10 (as it should, in accordance with the 16-parameter Lie group). The factorized form of the metrical field equations were then shown to be the 16 independent field relations as follows:

(1/4)(Krlql + ql Krl+) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

The quaternion equation conjugate to this one (its space or time reflection) is:

-(1/4)(Krl+ql + ql Krl) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

where the ‘spin curvature’ tensor Krl will be defined below and

R = (1/2)(Krlql qr - qr ql Krl + ql Krl+qr - qr Krl+q l)

is the Riemann scalar curvature in quaternion form. With this new formalism, the invariant differential of the curved space-time is a quaternion-valued scalar"

Highly unorthodox.

What is your opinion?

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 9:47 am on July 2, 2003)

"I am not a mathametician" -RAF

Cutting and pasting does not mean you understand the theory.

Please clarify, how:

-(1/4)(Krl+ql + ql Krl) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

is symmetrical and covariant. I am sure you lost a lot of formatting from your cut and paste and have lost a lot of the meaning and notation. I can not remember the spefic test that a tensor must past to be symmetrical and covariant, plus your notation does not help. Just the fact that the tensor space has a complex conjugate already is meeting one of the tests for being symmetrical and covariant, but there are more test that I can not remember.

Plus if you can help by expressing the general form of a Riemann tensor I can answer your question. The Reimann tensor has a very specific form. Sorry I sold those textbooks and can not look up the general form.

(Edited by kelvin at 6:27 am on July 3, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

3rd July 2003, 10:07

Are you for real KKKelvin? Please feel free to refute any portion of the above statements that I made. Can you?
Stop tying to be smart son.

If you will notice in my post I advise "here is his equations supporting the above highlighted portion" There is then a set of QUOTATION MARKS surrounding the following notation and set of equations. QUOTATION MARKS mean I WAS QUOTING SOMEONE ELSES MATERIAL. And the answer to your question is NO, NOTHING WAS LOST WHEN I CUT AND PASTED THIS NOTATION AND SET OF EQUATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. THIS IS THE PORTION OF EQUATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE PORTION OF DR. SACHS' THEORY I AM QUESTIONING.

As I am not a mathmetition, I do not understand the equations, and never claimed to. I understand theory just fine. If you have any comments to make on any portion of the above discussion please try. I'm sure it will lead to you once again making a fool out of yourself. I will even place them here again for your own review son. If you can please give me some answers boy.

I've been communicating with theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs in regards to the relationship of relativity to quantum theory; in essence as faster than light is possible under quantum theory yet impossible under relativity, would a new unified field theory then make it possible to tavel faster than light inder all circumstances, not simply within a quantum system? Relativity's curvature of space-time when surrounding incredibly dense matter (or incredibly large masses) should play a key factor as light being both wave and particle should react in conjuction with the curvature.

BoyKelvin, please advise me on your thoughts to the possiblity of a unified field allowing for faster than light travel within all forms of gravity. Taking these things into consideration;

Relativity does not allow for faster than light travel.

Quantum mechanics allows for faster than light travel.

Will relativity's curvature of space-time withing incredibly strong gravitation fields play a factor.

We must also consider (but not yet apply) that inflation theory predicts faster than light travel prior to the development of matter and radiation in the early life of the universe. How then can inflation theory be applied to a universe with a near critical density of matter? Would not the matter itself in affect actually prohibit inflation theory from being re-applied? (as it would violate relativity) Could it then be possible to theorise that relativity's curvature of space-time may provide enough re-distribution of matter over the curvature to allow for inflation theory to be re-applied outside of the initial stages of the big bang but only when contained inside a large enough gravitation field to curve space time? (Possibly even help to fill the gap between quantum and relativity theories respectively)

Please advise BoyKKKelvin if it is it possible to theorise that relativites curvature of space-time distribute enough matter to allow for inflation theory to be re-applied within those respective curvatures.Please provide facts to back up any statement.

"The symmetry group that underlies the covariance of Einstein’s field equations includes the discrete reflections in space and time, which are not in the covariance requirement of relativity theory - thus, the representations of the group that underlies Einstein’s tensor equations are reducible. When the reflections are removed from the group, its representations change to the irreducible form and Einstein’s equations factorize to quaternion formalism."

I would like for you now KKKelvin to plaese provide your views on the above statement made by Dr. Mendel Sachs in his unified field theory.

You're out of your league you little ****. Now get the fuck back in your hole.

Ghost Writer

3rd July 2003, 10:44

There are nicer ways of asking me for my opinion, Comrade RAF. For starters, you could try calling me by my actual screen name, and quit calling me Ghost Whiner. I do not like it, nor do I think the idiot who proposed it as a label was particularly bright. The fact that you people need to demoralize your opposition shows your general lack of style and/or class.

Dhul Fiqar

3rd July 2003, 11:48

What about your inability to take hints such as: "YOU ARE BANNED YOU PIGFUCKER!!!" ??

What about the many hundreds of hours you have apparently spent on this site despite being completely unwanted here? What does THAT tell you?

Actually, we'll need a psychiatrist for that one.

--- G.

Ghost Writer

3rd July 2003, 12:32

The only thing it should tell you is that I refuse to cave into pressure, especially when it is generated by people who would love to shoot me in the back. It should tell you that I have a seething hatred for communists. It should demonstrate a basic disregard for authority, and remain characteristic of how fervently I would apply this hate on a battlefield against the enemies of civilization.

Dhul Fiqar

3rd July 2003, 13:54

In other words: you have no life and shouting at 14 year old che admirers on a messageboard passes the time.

Don't worry, I understand, what with only 666 channels to choose from on cable, although that is a lot more highbrow than some of what you take part in here.

--- G.

Xprewatik RED

3rd July 2003, 14:04

"The only thing it should tell you is that I refuse to cave into pressure, especially when it is generated by people who would love to shoot me in the back. It should tell you that I have a seething hatred for communists. It should demonstrate a basic disregard for authority, and remain characteristic of how fervently I would apply this hate on a battlefield against the enemies of civilization."

You are the one who just stated you want to kill all communists. I as a marxist never stated i wanted to kill or shoot you. I don't even care. I take it your a capitalist Ghost Writer. Maybe you need to go to China and work in a Nike factory, I'm sure you will instantly love Capitalism. If you want to debate than debate, but if coming here keeps up your esteem than you have other problems.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd July 2003, 18:54

Now C'mon Duhl. I think we should respect his wishes.

Okay, Ghost Wanker, do you have an opinion on the above material? I provided the equations specifically for you. I certainly hope all those former posts on "kinetic theory" and "chaos theory" were indeed your own words....You did skate around this particular issue very quickly.

Sorry about all the Ghost Whiner business Ghost Wanker.

You're kung-fu is still good Duhl.

Dhul Fiqar

3rd July 2003, 19:21

ROFL, I like the way you think RAF! Look at his new title ;)

My apologies for leaving you with that old offensive one for so long GW.

--- G.

Rastafari

3rd July 2003, 20:25

hilarious, AND mature!
Way to go, Dhul

I do like it, though

Vinny Rafarino

3rd July 2003, 21:15

Good business Duhl. He should be nice and fired up by that. The title Gost Wanker comes from Che Y Marijuana.

Dhul Fiqar

3rd July 2003, 21:25

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/monkeyrobot.jpg

kelvin

4th July 2003, 01:45

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 10:07 am on July 3, 2003
Are you for real KKKelvin? Please feel free to refute any portion of the above statements that I made. Can you?
Stop tying to be smart son.

If you will notice in my post I advise "here is his equations supporting the above highlighted portion" There is then a set of QUOTATION MARKS surrounding the following notation and set of equations. QUOTATION MARKS mean I WAS QUOTING SOMEONE ELSES MATERIAL. And the answer to your question is NO, NOTHING WAS LOST WHEN I CUT AND PASTED THIS NOTATION AND SET OF EQUATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. THIS IS THE PORTION OF EQUATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE PORTION OF DR. SACHS' THEORY I AM QUESTIONING.

As I am not a mathmetition, I do not understand the equations, and never claimed to. I understand theory just fine. If you have any comments to make on any portion of the above discussion please try. I'm sure it will lead to you once again making a fool out of yourself. I will even place them here again for your own review son. If you can please give me some answers boy.

I've been communicating with theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs in regards to the relationship of relativity to quantum theory; in essence as faster than light is possible under quantum theory yet impossible under relativity, would a new unified field theory then make it possible to tavel faster than light inder all circumstances, not simply within a quantum system? Relativity's curvature of space-time when surrounding incredibly dense matter (or incredibly large masses) should play a key factor as light being both wave and particle should react in conjuction with the curvature.

BoyKelvin, please advise me on your thoughts to the possiblity of a unified field allowing for faster than light travel within all forms of gravity. Taking these things into consideration;

Relativity does not allow for faster than light travel.

Quantum mechanics allows for faster than light travel.

Will relativity's curvature of space-time withing incredibly strong gravitation fields play a factor.

We must also consider (but not yet apply) that inflation theory predicts faster than light travel prior to the development of matter and radiation in the early life of the universe. How then can inflation theory be applied to a universe with a near critical density of matter? Would not the matter itself in affect actually prohibit inflation theory from being re-applied? (as it would violate relativity) Could it then be possible to theorise that relativity's curvature of space-time may provide enough re-distribution of matter over the curvature to allow for inflation theory to be re-applied outside of the initial stages of the big bang but only when contained inside a large enough gravitation field to curve space time? (Possibly even help to fill the gap between quantum and relativity theories respectively)

Please advise BoyKKKelvin if it is it possible to theorise that relativites curvature of space-time distribute enough matter to allow for inflation theory to be re-applied within those respective curvatures.Please provide facts to back up any statement.

"The symmetry group that underlies the covariance of Einstein’s field equations includes the discrete reflections in space and time, which are not in the covariance requirement of relativity theory - thus, the representations of the group that underlies Einstein’s tensor equations are reducible. When the reflections are removed from the group, its representations change to the irreducible form and Einstein’s equations factorize to quaternion formalism."

I would like for you now KKKelvin to plaese provide your views on the above statement made by Dr. Mendel Sachs in his unified field theory.

You're out of your league you little ****. Now get the fuck back in your hole.

I am not refuting. I am asking for more clarity. You have completely basteredized the notetation. Your cut and paste has removed all tensor formulation. Your equations are meaningless, please clearify your notation.

(Edited by kelvin at 1:49 am on July 4, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

4th July 2003, 01:59

These are the exact equations from Dr. Sachs' unifoed field theory that give merit to the statement I highlighted in his notation. Can't you admit you simply don't understand the equations? I can. I will try to clarify this more for you.

Here is the portion of the statement from Dr. Sachs that I find unorthodox.

"The symmetry group that underlies the covariance of Einstein’s field equations includes the discrete reflections in space and time, which are not in the covariance requirement of relativity theory - thus, the representations of the group that underlies Einstein’s tensor equations are reducible."

Here are the equations Dr. Sachs uses to suppoet this statement. In other words, this is how he proves that Relativity when according to the field equations is actually formalised and not relative.

"(1/4)(Krlql + ql Krl+) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

The quaternion equation conjugate to this one (its space or time reflection) is:

-(1/4)(Krl+ql + ql Krl) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

where the ‘spin curvature’ tensor Krl will be defined below and

R = (1/2)(Krlql qr - qr ql Krl + ql Krl+qr - qr Krl+q l)

is the Riemann scalar curvature in quaternion form. With this new formalism, the invariant differential of the curved space-time is a quaternion-valued scalar"

When you say I have "bastardised the equations you are simply looking for conflict where there is none. In essence, if you think these equations are bastardised, take it up with Dr. Fucking Sachs you oaf!

His email address ain't hard to find son.

kelvin

4th July 2003, 02:02

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 10:07 am on July 3, 2003
Are you for real KKKelvin? Please feel free to refute any portion of the above statements that I made. Can you?
Stop tying to be smart son.

If you will notice in my post I advise "here is his equations supporting the above highlighted portion" There is then a set of QUOTATION MARKS surrounding the following notation and set of equations. QUOTATION MARKS mean I WAS QUOTING SOMEONE ELSES MATERIAL. And the answer to your question is NO, NOTHING WAS LOST WHEN I CUT AND PASTED THIS NOTATION AND SET OF EQUATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. THIS IS THE PORTION OF EQUATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE PORTION OF DR. SACHS' THEORY I AM QUESTIONING.

As I am not a mathmetition, I do not understand the equations, and never claimed to. I understand theory just fine. If you have any comments to make on any portion of the above discussion please try. I'm sure it will lead to you once again making a fool out of yourself. I will even place them here again for your own review son. If you can please give me some answers boy.

I've been communicating with theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs in regards to the relationship of relativity to quantum theory; in essence as faster than light is possible under quantum theory yet impossible under relativity, would a new unified field theory then make it possible to tavel faster than light inder all circumstances, not simply within a quantum system? Relativity's curvature of space-time when surrounding incredibly dense matter (or incredibly large masses) should play a key factor as light being both wave and particle should react in conjuction with the curvature.

BoyKelvin, please advise me on your thoughts to the possiblity of a unified field allowing for faster than light travel within all forms of gravity. Taking these things into consideration;

Relativity does not allow for faster than light travel.

Quantum mechanics allows for faster than light travel.

Will relativity's curvature of space-time withing incredibly strong gravitation fields play a factor.

We must also consider (but not yet apply) that inflation theory predicts faster than light travel prior to the development of matter and radiation in the early life of the universe. How then can inflation theory be applied to a universe with a near critical density of matter? Would not the matter itself in affect actually prohibit inflation theory from being re-applied? (as it would violate relativity) Could it then be possible to theorise that relativity's curvature of space-time may provide enough re-distribution of matter over the curvature to allow for inflation theory to be re-applied outside of the initial stages of the big bang but only when contained inside a large enough gravitation field to curve space time? (Possibly even help to fill the gap between quantum and relativity theories respectively)

Please advise BoyKKKelvin if it is it possible to theorise that relativites curvature of space-time distribute enough matter to allow for inflation theory to be re-applied within those respective curvatures.Please provide facts to back up any statement.

"The symmetry group that underlies the covariance of Einstein’s field equations includes the discrete reflections in space and time, which are not in the covariance requirement of relativity theory - thus, the representations of the group that underlies Einstein’s tensor equations are reducible. When the reflections are removed from the group, its representations change to the irreducible form and Einstein’s equations factorize to quaternion formalism."

I would like for you now KKKelvin to plaese provide your views on the above statement made by Dr. Mendel Sachs in his unified field theory.

You're out of your league you little ****. Now get the fuck back in your hole.

If youd don't understand the math you don't understand the theory.

None of his "text" suppositions violates any of the mathematical machinery.

What I would like from you is a few details regarding the tensor notation. This is very important, because how the tensor equation is expressed reveals weather or not his thoery breaks down under "non-unified" energies. Plus you need to express the full matrix for me to judge what you are trying to say. The matrix is going to make some predictions regarding the existance of certain subatomic particles and thier characteristics. How the matrix is laid out will have equalivant equations that relate to other branches of phyics. If you can corrolate equilivatant equations then the model can extend to other branches of physics and be "unified".

All I said I can not prove or disprove unless your also able to speak "tensor math".

Plus the theory is all just a game. I suspect that the theory if it is a cutting edge model has no experimental corroboration. All current theories regarding cutting edge energies are just guesses. There is no current experiment that can produce enough energy to confirm or deny any cutting edge theory. All those physicist are just guessing.

Vinny Rafarino

4th July 2003, 02:11

You're full of shit. You simply cannot answer any of my questions. Fuck off.

canikickit

4th July 2003, 03:39

There are nicer ways of asking me for my opinion, Comrade RAF. For starters, you could try calling me by my actual screen name, and quit calling me Ghost Whiner.

I do think he's got a point.

But then you open a thread he starts with the opening line: "even bottom feeding communist recognise that...".

That is why I think you misrepresent the truth consistantly Norm.

(Edited by canikickit at 3:42 am on July 4, 2003)

kelvin

4th July 2003, 05:50

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 1:59 am on July 4, 2003
These are the exact equations from Dr. Sachs' unifoed field theory that give merit to the statement I highlighted in his notation. Can't you admit you simply don't understand the equations? I can. I will try to clarify this more for you.

You can not clarify something you have admitted you don't understand.

Quote:
Here is the portion of the statement from Dr. Sachs that I find unorthodox.

"The symmetry group that underlies the covariance of Einstein’s field equations includes the discrete reflections in space and time, which are not in the covariance requirement of relativity theory - thus, the representations of the group that underlies Einstein’s tensor equations are reducible."

Here are the equations Dr. Sachs uses to suppoet this statement. In other words, this is how he proves that Relativity when according to the field equations is actually formalised and not relative.

"(1/4)(Krlql + ql Krl+) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

The quaternion equation conjugate to this one (its space or time reflection) is:

-(1/4)(Krl+ql + ql Krl) + (1/8) Rqr = kTr

where the ‘spin curvature’ tensor Krl will be defined below and

R = (1/2)(Krlql qr - qr ql Krl + ql Krl+qr - qr Krl+q l)

is the Riemann scalar curvature in quaternion form. With this new formalism, the invariant differential of the curved space-time is a quaternion-valued scalar"

When you say I have "bastardised the equations you are simply looking for conflict where there is none. In essence, if you think these equations are bastardised, take it up with Dr. Fucking Sachs you oaf!

His email address ain't hard to find son.

Your right I don't understand it. Your cut and paste has totally destroyed the notation. It is not my job to do your research.

Highly unorthdox? How can I even make any judgement when you have ruined the notation.

What every you have posted is meaningless. I am sure Dr. Sachs wrote those equations in tensor format. What you posted is not.

(Edited by kelvin at 5:54 am on July 4, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

4th July 2003, 09:29

What exatly are you not understanding kelvin? What appears here is exactly identicle to what is in Dr. Sachs' theory. I even checked as you got me worrying.
What exactly are trying to say here Kelvin? The "cut and paste" has not changed to information one bit. Its exactly the same. I think you are trying to intentionally make me look bad. I suppose I'm not going to get any ansers from you and ghost wanker has decided not to reply as well. I will now then simply carry on.

You are wrong about understanding theory without knowing the eauations.

Either answer the questions I posed or don't bother posting as I will not respond. If you have any more questions regarding the equations, please foreward them to Dr. Sachs. They are his.

Liberty Lover

4th July 2003, 09:58

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 1:54 pm on July 3, 2003
In other words: you have no life

Norm has a steady partner and a child.

You chat up "chix" on political forums.

Remind me again which one of you has no life.

Ghost Writer

4th July 2003, 12:45

Okay, Ghost Wanker, do you have an opinion on the above material? I provided the equations specifically for you. I certainly hope all those former posts on "kinetic theory" and "chaos theory" were indeed your own words....You did skate around this particular issue very quickly.

Look fuck-face, there is a significant difference between the derivation of the simple non-Maxwellian version of the kinetic theory, and the 16-parameter Lie group that you are asking me to look at. First of all, the only thing needed for the kinetic theory derivation is algebra, while the derivation that you are asking me to do consists of tensors containing vector fields. This requires much more thought and might take me a significant amount of time, since we get into the realm of imaginary numbers and partial derivatives. The calculus required is heavier than the simple theories that I asked you to interpret. Furthermore, I did not simply give you the end result with no derivation, or starting axioms. You expect me to conclude something, from the limited amount of information that you provided me with. To be far to the argument, and give you an answer more important than something like, “that’s highly unorthodox”, I must immerse myself in material, and use the complex mathematical tools necessary for this work.

You are asking me to derive a unified field equation by essentially combining Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations with Einstein’s gravitational field equation, using complex systems of mathematics that you yourself do not understand. Not only that, then you ask me to make predictions about physical behavior based upon the understanding that I gain by going through this process. Don't worry, I expect that kind of behavior from communists. They never really wish to do any of the hard work, when they can dupe others into doing it for them. As far as I am concerned, this is the work of a theoretical physicist. As I understand it, they get paid for the hours they slave over their derivations, for good reason I might add. They advance civilization by refining our perception of the truth.

Can I do it? Yes. Will you understand it? No. So tell me, why should I expend the time and energy required, when you can not even show me the respect I deserve? Why should I spend the time trying to explain it to a nincompoop who will not understand the work, I will have spent days working on?

We must remember that men like Mendel Sachs have spent their lives working on these problems, and have earned their Ph.D.’s in areas of academics more worthy of respect than political science. They are producers, innovators, and inventors who do not speak the language of communists, as they represent the very thing that the looters wish to harness and steal without doing any of the hard work. This is the type of ability that you yourself wish to plunder and destroy by equating them with the lowly bum on the street, not worthy of a meal. Ideas like the one presented by you, in an effort to stump me, will dry up like moisture in the desert air, if your style of politics wins out over the creative mind. You are jealous of this creativity, and would rather suffocate it than let it run unfettered, leaving the originator of ideas free to profit from their hard work and ingenuity. Therefore, I will demand the respect that I deserve before I attempt a problem that you could not even begin to understand.

You are wrong about understanding theory without knowing the eauations.

No, you are. Equations provide the language needed to fully express a theory. You can have a general idea about the theory without understanding the equations, but you can not fully understand it without knowing how they are derived, and how the model behaves mathematically. After all, that is why we use mathematics.

By the way, do you know of any empirical data that supports Mendel's formulation?

Oh, and here is a link that should provide you with knowledge about tensor mathematics (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s5-02/5-02.htm). If you need help, just ask.

Dhul Fiqar

4th July 2003, 13:41

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 5:58 pm on July 4, 2003

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 1:54 pm on July 3, 2003
In other words: you have no life

Norm has a steady partner and a child.

You chat up "chix" on political forums.

Remind me again which one of you has no life.

First of all I never made any claims about having a life, it is common knowledge that I have no such thing, obviously you aren't keeping on top of things these days.

Secondly: LOL, when did I chat up "chix" on the net (or use that word, lol)?

Unless.... wait, your AIM name isn't Lil14yoBlondie69 is it???!?!?

--- G.

p.s. I did get laid last weekend, here's a pic of me chatting up a nice piece of meat (I'm on the right, I like them petite):

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/misc46.jpg

Vinny Rafarino

5th July 2003, 01:17

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 12:45 pm on July 4, 2003

Okay, Ghost Wanker, do you have an opinion on the above material? I provided the equations specifically for you. I certainly hope all those former posts on "kinetic theory" and "chaos theory" were indeed your own words....You did skate around this particular issue very quickly.

Look fuck-face, there is a significant difference between the derivation of the simple non-Maxwellian version of the kinetic theory, and the 16-parameter Lie group that you are asking me to look at. First of all, the only thing needed for the kinetic theory derivation is algebra, while the derivation that you are asking me to do consists of tensors containing vector fields. This requires much more thought and might take me a significant amount of time, since we get into the realm of imaginary numbers and partial derivatives. The calculus required is heavier than the simple theories that I asked you to interpret. Furthermore, I did not simply give you the end result with no derivation, or starting axioms. You expect me to conclude something, from the limited amount of information that you provided me with. To be far to the argument, and give you an answer more important than something like, “that’s highly unorthodox”, I must immerse myself in material, and use the complex mathematical tools necessary for this work.

You are asking me to derive a unified field equation by essentially combining Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations with Einstein’s gravitational field equation, using complex systems of mathematics that you yourself do not understand. Not only that, then you ask me to make predictions about physical behavior based upon the understanding that I gain by going through this process. Don't worry, I expect that kind of behavior from communists. They never really wish to do any of the hard work, when they can dupe others into doing it for them. As far as I am concerned, this is the work of a theoretical physicist. As I understand it, they get paid for the hours they slave over their derivations, for good reason I might add. They advance civilization by refining our perception of the truth.

Can I do it? Yes. Will you understand it? No. So tell me, why should I expend the time and energy required, when you can not even show me the respect I deserve? Why should I spend the time trying to explain it to a nincompoop who will not understand the work, I will have spent days working on?

We must remember that men like Mendel Sachs have spent their lives working on these problems, and have earned their Ph.D.’s in areas of academics more worthy of respect than political science. They are producers, innovators, and inventors who do not speak the language of communists, as they represent the very thing that the looters wish to harness and steal without doing any of the hard work. This is the type of ability that you yourself wish to plunder and destroy by equating them with the lowly bum on the street, not worthy of a meal. Ideas like the one presented by you, in an effort to stump me, will dry up like moisture in the desert air, if your style of politics wins out over the creative mind. You are jealous of this creativity, and would rather suffocate it than let it run unfettered, leaving the originator of ideas free to profit from their hard work and ingenuity. Therefore, I will demand the respect that I deserve before I attempt a problem that you could not even begin to understand.

You are wrong about understanding theory without knowing the eauations.

No, you are. Equations provide the language needed to fully express a theory. You can have a general idea about the theory without understanding the equations, but you can not fully understand it without knowing how they are derived, and how the model behaves mathematically. After all, that is why we use mathematics.

By the way, do you know of any empirical data that supports Mendel's formulation?

Oh, and here is a link that should provide you with knowledge about tensor mathematics (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s5-02/5-02.htm). If you need help, just ask.

Blah blah blah. Just admit you can't do it "fuck-face". What pussies you and KKKelvin are. This is exactly what I expected when I posted this material. I knew you kids would be mytefied by it. I also knew you would start slandering me and eventually talk about how you could do the work in your sleep yet at the last minute find some way to back out of actually proving it. Since you are too much of a little **** to address even the origianal questions, you fell right into my trap...You are all bimbling fools. I actually get off on baiting you like this ghost whiner. KKKelvin is so dim you don't even have to really bait him. I could post "HI" and this oaf wold ramble on about something absurd. For fuck's sake, all you really need to do to bait that imbecile is wave a set of keys ifn front of him. He likes shiny things that make funny noises. You, I just like to get all riled up...I can imagine you running around beating your kid with a belt after looking like such a moron in front of the entire board. Just to let you in on somehting kiddo, it could be possible I fully understand these equations. I could just prefer to see if you do. So far, you are all bark and no bite boy. I email every resopnse from you and littleBoyKKKevin to all my mates in the field of theoretical physics...You got you dream sonny! You're the talk of the Theoretical Physics world!! Well, if that includes being the but of all their jokes, then...You did it man! It's funny listening to complete fucking geeks talk about how big of pussies you and boyKelvin are...It just seems so wrong but funny none the less. Keep up the good work lads!

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 1:33 am on July 5, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

5th July 2003, 01:50

First of all I never made any claims about having a life, it is common knowledge that I have no such thing, obviously you aren't keeping on top of things these days.

Secondly: LOL, when did I chat up "chix" on the net (or use that word, lol)?

Unless.... wait, your AIM name isn't Lil14yoBlondie69 is it???!?!?

--- G.

p.s. I did get laid last weekend, here's a pic of me chatting up a nice piece of meat (I'm on the right, I like them petite):

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/misc46.jpg

Duhl, this is where I draw the line. I told you when we snapped this photo it was for our personal viewing pleasure Now you go around parading us all over hell and back. I already have to deal with being little! How could you do this to me after all this time together!
I suppose you have also sold our videos on the black market right!

I demand an explanation.

Ghost Writer

6th July 2003, 13:11

Like I said, if you incapable of saying please, you will never know if I can derive this equation will you. Of course, you would rather refrain from asking me nicely and having me throw your trap right back in your face.

Tell me RAF, since you are now claiming to understand the material, the gradient vector, g, is covariant, why does the determinant of the Jacobian need to nonzero in order for invertibility to be implied?

"Just admit you can't do it "fuck-face"."

I admit that I have never done this derivation. However, I know that I can do it, because I have proven my ability to solve complex problems. I do it everyday. I have never met a problem that I can not solve, if I take the time. That's my point. You are asking me to spend a good amount of time on something, but I have know way of knowing if you will be able to follow my work. Besides I don't solve problems for people who are rude to me, I solve them for people who pay me or give me a grade, based on my work.

I have a question for you. It's a little simpler, but I thought I might ask you just to see if you were capable of solving a Dear Abbey question I once read. 3/4 cups of a 50% bran mixture is mixed with 2/3 cups of a 15% bran mixture and an addition 3 cups of a 42% bran mixture. This mixture is then mixed with 16 cups grain mixture that contains no bran, and then mixed with 16 cups of another bran mixture of unknown composition. If the final mixture contains 30% bran what was the unknown composition?

I love and guide my child. I do not beat my child. That's sounds more like your level than mine.

Ghost Writer

6th July 2003, 13:19

I email every resopnse from you and littleBoyKKKevin to all my mates in the field of theoretical physics...You got you dream sonny! You're the talk of the Theoretical Physics world!! Well, if that includes being the but of all their jokes, then...You did it man! It's funny listening to complete fucking geeks talk about how big of pussies you and boyKelvin are...It just seems so wrong but funny none the less. Keep up the good work lads!

Furthermore, you are a liar.

Vinny Rafarino

6th July 2003, 16:26

Right.

Do you have excellent problem solving skills that give you a leg-up in today's competetive market? Perhaps you also have outstanding written and oral communication skills as well as an impeccable ability to multi-task.

What is this your fucking resume ****? Give me a usefull answer and perhaps I may bother with your question.

As far as being a liar. You may never know sonny-boy.

Ghost Writer

7th July 2003, 01:01

You want my answer? I think this proposal made by Mendel Sachs is highly unorthodox.

Vinny Rafarino

7th July 2003, 10:29

Right.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 10:35 am on July 7, 2003)

kelvin

9th July 2003, 21:50

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:54 am on July 1, 2003
Ghost Whiner,

I've been communicating with theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs
(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 9:47 am on July 2, 2003)

Your a liar.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/990429/sachs.shtml

"Robert Sachs, Professor Emeritus in Physics, dies at age 82" - April 1999

kelvin

9th July 2003, 21:53

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 9:29 am on July 4, 2003
What exatly are you not understanding kelvin? What appears here is exactly identicle to what is in Dr. Sachs' theory. I even checked as you got me worrying.
What exactly are trying to say here Kelvin? The "cut and paste" has not changed to information one bit. Its exactly the same. I think you are trying to intentionally make me look bad. I suppose I'm not going to get any ansers from you and ghost wanker has decided not to reply as well. I will now then simply carry on.

You are wrong about understanding theory without knowing the eauations.

Either answer the questions I posed or don't bother posting as I will not respond. If you have any more questions regarding the equations, please foreward them to Dr. Sachs. They are his.

You lied again. Check the notation:

http://www.compukol.com/mendel/articles/On...c_Monopoles.doc (http://www.compukol.com/mendel/articles/On_Unification_of_Gravity_and_Electromagnetism_and _the_Absence_of_Magnetic_Monopoles.doc)

They are not exact.

kelvin

9th July 2003, 21:55

Quote: from kelvin on 9:50 pm on July 9, 2003

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:54 am on July 1, 2003
Ghost Whiner,

I've been communicating with theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs
(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 9:47 am on July 2, 2003)

What?

"Robert Sachs, Professor Emeritus in Physics, dies at age 82" - April 1999

Vinny Rafarino

10th July 2003, 01:35

Kelvin you are an idiot. Look at the first names closely.

Who the fuck is Robert Sachs???

Good try dipshit. MENDEL sachs is alive and kicking...he is the professor of physics at Buffalo University.

Jesus KKKelin...Why do you have to embarrass yourself so much. I mean...you even included my post in your reply...The name MENDEL SACHS is one fucking inch over your post...Imbecile.

EDIT:

How dumb do you feel right now son? Dumb enough to go back and edit your post I would think.So I am including it here...Try and edit this jackass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:54 am on July 1, 2003
Ghost Whiner,

I've been communicating with theoretical physicist Mendel Sachs
(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 9:47 am on July 2, 2003)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your a liar.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/990429/sachs.shtml

"Robert Sachs, Professor Emeritus in Physics, dies at age 82" - April 1999

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 1:47 am on July 10, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

10th July 2003, 01:43

With all this time you have spent trying futily to make me look bad, all you have done is make yourself look like a fucking moron.

Check the notation:

http://www.compukol.com/mendel/articles/On...c_Monopoles.doc (http://www.compukol.com/mendel/articles/On_Unification_of_Gravity_and_Electromagnetism_and _the_Absence_of_Magnetic_Monopoles.doc)

They are not exact.

You win that one. HOWEVER stating "I lied" is absurd. I just did not see it at the time as I was looking at the numbers.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that certain symbols cannot be represented on this forum. How long until you actually went and looked for yourself dipshit? I guess I overestimated again on your intellectual capacity. I have seen sharper marbles.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:15 am on July 10, 2003)

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

10th July 2003, 07:37

After reading a couple of those algologarithmitics or whatever, my brain melted and dribbled out my ears.
Then I got bored and decided to smoke it, pretty trippy.

Ghost Writer

10th July 2003, 21:43

Blah blah blah. Just admit you can't do it "fuck-face". What pussies you and KKKelvin are. This is exactly what I expected when I posted this material. I knew you kids would be mytefied by it. I also knew you would start slandering me and eventually talk about how you could do the work in your sleep yet at the last minute find some way to back out of actually proving it.

Okay then, take me through the derivation. Prove to me that you have the comprehension to derive this equation, by taking me through it step by step. By this, I do not mean copy and pasting from the original document, or any others. I want to see the tensor mathematics in full form. It seems to me that all you have done is set your own trap, because you do not even have the know how to begin. I doubt you even know how to take a partial derivative. This becomes particularly tricky when matix methods and linear alegebra come inot play. Hell, you couldn't even answer my simple bran question. (Notice I used bran as an example, because I highly suspect that you are not getting enough bran in your diet.)

Don't you think it's pretty dumb to ask a question that you have no understanding of? I am still waiting for your apology, before I begin this derivation. In addition, could you call me by my screen name and use the word please when asking me nicely? Thanks.

Vinny Rafarino

11th July 2003, 21:00

have perfect understanding of the theoretical questions I asked. It is obvious you do not as you have yet to answer them. You instead make every attempt to avoid the topic at hand. Pussy.

Just admit the questions I asked are beyond you boy.

One more thing;

Go fuck yourself son.

Ghost Writer

13th July 2003, 01:54

Just admit that the question you asked is beyond your comprehension, since you have failed to show us the mechanics, and because you are too stupid to even answer a simple mixture problem. Sorry, but I fail to be impressed with your ability to copy and paste somebody else's equations without understanding how they are derived. If you claim that you are better than me, then prove it by going through the mathematics, which you do not understand. For now, I have answered your question just as you did. Highly unorthodox. To further demonstrate that you have absolutely no understanding of the mathematical concepts needed to derive Mendel's equation, let me ask you a little more about matrix methods, sonny boy.

In linear algebra, we us matrix methods to solve systems of equations. The inverse of the coefficient matrix multiplied by a vector containing the right hand side yields a product that contains what?

If matrix A = [sin(x), cos(x); sin(x)(dy/dx), cos(x)(dy/dx)], what is the Wronskian of the matrix, and is it linearly independent, or linearly dependent?

This should be sufficient to demonstrate that you have no familiarity with the operators needed to conduct that mathematics that will simplify Maxwell's magnetic field equation's and Einstien's gravitation field equation's into the form derived by Mendel Sach's. How many years of differential equations, linear algebra, and calculus have you had, Comrade RAF Ph.D.? I would be willing to bet that you have had about 4 years less than I have, but if you think you can do the work, I would be happy to see you do it.

If you would rather have me do it then ask politely, otherwise I will assume that you would rather gloat in shallow victory, not willing to test the waters and see if I actually have the capacity to carry out the mathematics. It seems as if you should jump through that small little hoop, before I jump through the rather large one you are asking me to jump through. What's more difficult, asking politely, or doing the math? It is evident that you can't do it, so it seems as if you should take the necessary steps to test me, before you declare victory. I think it is you who are the pussy, because you do not even wish to test the waters by meeting my request before I meet yours. Once you have said the magic words, and I do not get back to you with a response, then you will have gained gloating rights. Until then, you are the pussy. All you have to do is say please, but I wouldn't expect someone with as little class as you to understand this.

canikickit

13th July 2003, 02:07

Who is winning?

Anonymous

13th July 2003, 02:13

SN, of course.

TouCHE

14th July 2003, 00:00

Ghost Writer, I question your party loyalty. What separates human beings from proletariat scum is not mental capacity. The indissoluble wall that stands between us and them is not crafted from loose strands of meaningless intellect. For someone who boasts such a profound understanding of the general sciences, I would expect you to understand this obvious maxim.

Who's winning? Who gives a hang: it's measles vs mumps.

canikickit

14th July 2003, 01:43

My question was not genuine, I see this as nothing more than a bragging contest between two people who should have better things to do with their time.

Take a look at Norm's (Ghost Writer) last post, for example. What proportion of it is actually discussion and what proportion is an attempt to undermine and degrade RAF? The first paragraph may very well be written in flowery language, but it is just the equivilent of calling RAF "gay".

In this case it is fair to say that RAF cast the first stone, but I hope nobody is fooled by Norm's lying bleating.

This is a competition to see who can show off the most. Note how Dark Capitalist immediatly capitulates to the guy on his "side".

(Edited by canikickit at 1:47 am on July 14, 2003)

Ex Nihilo

14th July 2003, 02:12

Note how Dark Capitalist immediatly capitulates to the guy on his "side".

But he is winning. SN is obviously more knowledgable on the subject than comrade raf.

canikickit

14th July 2003, 02:17

The subject of making the other person look bad?
Possibly.

Liberty Lover

14th July 2003, 04:43

Quote: from canikickit on 1:43 am on July 14, 2003
My question was not genuine, I see this as nothing more than a bragging contest between two people who should have better things to do with their time.

Take a look at Norm's (Ghost Writer) last post, for example. What proportion of it is actually discussion and what proportion is an attempt to undermine and degrade RAF? The first paragraph may very well be written in flowery language, but it is just the equivilent of calling RAF "gay".

In this case it is fair to say that RAF cast the first stone, but I hope nobody is fooled by Norm's lying bleating.

This is a competition to see who can show off the most. Note how Dark Capitalist immediatly capitulates to the guy on his "side".

(Edited by canikickit at 1:47 am on July 14, 2003)

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You really are a funny fuck.

RAF's ad hominem comments

"How long until you actually went and looked for yourself dipshit? I guess I overestimated again on your intellectual capacity. I have seen sharper marbles."

"have perfect understanding of the theoretical questions I asked. It is obvious you do not as you have yet to answer them. You instead make every attempt to avoid the topic at hand. Pussy. "

"Just admit the questions I asked are beyond you boy.

One more thing;

Go fuck yourself son."

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 2:44 am on July 15, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

14th July 2003, 23:48

That's exactly what this turned out to be Cani. I never for once thought Ghost Wanker had the intellect to even remotely give me insight on Mendel's unified field theory. He showed his capacity in the infamous Communists are mentally disabled thread. The kat is a fool. I addresses any questions I had directly to him. He explained them brilliantly. A feat Little Normie could never accomplish.

I can show off the best. Me plumage is immense and quite colourful. I can also do a little dance when necessary.

What happened to BoyKKKelvin90210? He must really be embarrassed over his last postings.

DC. Little sixteen year old DC. Enough said.

Ghost Wanker, calculus is not required for a BA in English. I did not expect you to know that though.

TouCHE

15th July 2003, 04:47

An empty part of my brain finds this all vexing. If Ghost Writer is the dignified capitalist I picture him to be, he will have long given up on this unproductive tiff. What he has succumbed to thus far is enough to paint his face red with embarrassment. Cumwad RAF....stick to stupid puns.

(Edited by TouCHE at 4:51 am on July 15, 2003)

Ghost Writer

15th July 2003, 09:56

Most of you are mistaken as to my reasoning for carrying on with this thread. First, I plan to let Comrade RAF demonstrate his ignorance. Then I will allow him to further demonstrate his lack of style, and class by showing that he has absolutely no knowledge on the subject, and still refuses to ask his better in a manner consistent with civilized discourse. Then I will derive the equation, discuss its implications, and give a lengthy discourse about its application, or lack thereof. All of this headache will have been worth it if it will silence this nincompoop once and for all. However, I doubt it will, since the most ignorant among us sometimes remain the loudest.

How big of a file can be uploaded? I am going to have to scan my work as a .tif file since this forum doesn't really support the nomenclature I will be using, and equation editor can be a long ardous process.

For now, I must derive the steady periodic solution to the nonhomogenous differential equation (mass-spring-dashpot):

mx''+cx'+kx = Eo*cos(wt)+Fo*sin(wt)

where w denotes omega (period frequency)

To arrive at the solution:

Xsp(t) = ((Sqrt(Eo^2+Fo^2)/(sqrt((k-mw^2)^2+(cw)^2))*cos(wt-alpha-beta)

Where tan(alpha) = (cw)/(k-mw^2) and tan(beta) = Fo/Eo.

I don't suppose you would have any helpful hints for me, Comrade RAF?

To me it seems much more reasonable to understand basic mechanics, before you attempt to discuss the complicated stuff, like field equations, which need an understanding of differential equations and linear algebra to do them any justice. Helpful hint: start with algebra courses, and work your way up.

I would be surprised if Comrade RAF could even derive the kinematic equations using first order differential equations. You know:

x(t) = (.5*a*t^2)+(vo*t)+xo

However, it seems that he will pretend to have stumped me, when he has no dream of ever aspiring to develop an understanding of nature equal to mine. You want my derivation of the equation of Mendel Sach's that you posted? You will get it, in due time. Even though you were too low of a human being to even ask for my hard work in a polite manner. Of course, that is why you remain a communist. You are less than human and would rather obtain the unearned than give people their due respect. Please be patient, as I am taking summer classes that require a good deal of my time. You, Comrade Ralph, are at the bottom of my priority list, and your rudeness remains the reason why.