Unified field theory

Pinball1970 said:
I'm not a genius, few people are. Anyone can progress their own understanding with hard consistent work.
There are decent lectures on line for free, Leonard Suskind did some Stanford QM, GR cosmology.
There are some from Ed Witten if you are a sadist. I watched a few of his on QFT, if you are not within 10 minutes you a smarter man than me!
Click to expand...
Yes I heard of Witten he is highly regarded and sought after in the field of physics.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Yes I heard of Witten he is highly regarded and sought after in the field of physics.
Click to expand...
He won the fields medal, the only physicist to do that.
Super smart guy.
Like I said, check out some of the free resources out there.
Just one request? Please do not ChatGTP in your replies to me. You can ask me anything but please let it be you.

Scientific theories are built on what is already known, the scientific literature and any new data coming in. So a completely new theory has to do better than what is already out there. Explaining what has been explained already but better
GR explains a whole lot as does QM. Newton explains a lot too and there are interesting developments there.
These are collaborating teams though, the days of Newton and Einstein are gone.
 
Pinball1970 said:
He won the fields medal, the only physicist to do that.
Super smart guy.
Like I said, check out some of the free resources out there.
Just one request? Please do not ChatGTP in your replies to me. You can ask me anything but please let it be you.

Scientific theories are built on what is already known, the scientific literature and any new data coming in. So a completely new theory has to do better than what is already out there. Explaining what has been explained already but better
GR explains a whole lot as does QM. Newton explains a lot too and there are interesting developments there.
These are collaborating teams though, the days of Newton and Einstein are gone.
Click to expand...
Newton and Einstein are two of my favorites but I think Heisenberg was smarter than Einstein, I also like Faraday and I think the mathematician Cantor was the smartest man in existence in my personal opinion for my own reasons.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Newton and Einstein are two of my favorites but I think Heisenberg was smarter than Einstein, I also like Faraday and I think the mathematician Cantor was the smartest man in existence in my personal opinion for my own reasons.
Click to expand...
Yeah it can turn into a football card game. George Best or Pele? Both beautiful players, athletes and sportsmen.
I would check what the scientific community said about Von Neumann, also Feynman, Hawking and Curie. Imagine being a woman in a man's world yet winning two Nobel prizes in two different disciplines? Chemistry and Physics.
Pauli did a treatise on GR at 19, Einstein was impressed.
Paul Dirac was from a different planet, I recommend "the strangest man."
 
Pinball1970 said:
Yeah it can turn into a football card game. George Best or Pele? Both beautiful players, athletes and sportsmen.
I would check what the scientific community said about Von Neumann, also Feynman, Hawking and Curie. Imagine being a woman in a man's world yet winning two Nobel prizes in two different disciplines? Chemistry and Physics.
Pauli did a treatise on GR at 19, Einstein was impressed.
Paul Dirac was from a different planet, I recommend "the strangest man."
Click to expand...
They are all greats with something to contribute even if it was in different sections of the same puzzle.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You think we should be flattered because you want us to do your homework for you?

Well obviously I would think that but if you see no value in my work in which am not really hoping for much, if it’s wrong it’s probably a good thing, I won’t want that kind of power in the hand of humans anyways, I personally believe if this is not the solution to the unified field theory, then the solution will arrive inside of a decade, hopefully by me, but this time I will never share it.


Isn't that really our call, not yours? And everybody's kind of telling you it's a waste of their time.
Click to expand...
I don’t don’t doubt it but you should think in way in which the cup is half full even if it’s wrong doesn’t mean it can’t lead to something of value things are often not perfected on the first try. If you don’t want to contribute that’s fine I can do it myself, so far I haven’t detected the major mistakes, but it’s a good thing because I enjoy doing this working through a tedious peer review ritual myself will not hurt me. Thanks for at least giving an explanation.
 
DaveC426913 said:
These two words should never be seen together in a sentence.
Click to expand...
Am really interested in talking about interesting things not beer buddy talk, but too bad no more Rpenner, Plasma Inferno, Billy, Danshawen they were interesting members, actually if Rpenner was here this conversation would not be full of filler but actual substance, and instead of men acting out the rituals of bitching and imitating women on their periods Rpenner would have long ago invalidated my math if it was wrong from even yesterday, actually am willing to call out all of your bluffs, and actually say I don’t think you know why you think am wrong but it maybe feels good to say it that I am wrong.

If it was me I would of already addressed math and shut me up already but you are stalling why? Am wrong invalid the math and move on or don’t comment, saying am wrong and not pointing out my mistakes is kind of vain. But I guess you want money or something, it’s okay I already provided Origin with some information when he returns he can look it over for errors, lack of form or inconsistencies.

Am not claiming it’s correct but it could be you have to try man. But since you are no one else wants to contribute then I guess this discussion is over, I will investigate elsewhere, even if correct I still have a publication date.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Well you don’t need to be a Diva ex chemist I was posting for a second or even third opinions, I actually believe there must be an error, if I believed there was no error you would have never seen any of my work. This is why a peer review process exist often you might not see your own error this is normal or else there won’t be a peer review process.
Click to expand...
But this isn't your work. You told us it is what Chat GPT came up with.
 
DaveC426913 said:
These two words should never be seen together in a sentence.
Click to expand...
Am not saying am not wrong the whole idea was for you all to give me reasons why am wrong, and if you say it’s because I used AI to assist thats not convincing enough because you should be able to point out mathematical errors, or any kind of errors you can detect, I came here to falsify my theory, but it seems it won’t happen here anyways thanks for your time as it seems am wasting my time here, because you all feel like you are too good to have an informal discussion maybe taking a look at the paper will cause you to loose your house and kids I don’t know I can’t really relate to humans anyways, I don’t even know what, they are living for.
 
Do not insult other members. Please keep your misogyny to yourself.
exchemist said:
No, I'm equally bored. Ducky. :D
Click to expand...
Then why are you here? If I wasn’t interested in something I would never waste my time replying you’re a lame and a fraud for that. You must be on your period?
 
Moderator note: BrianHarwarespecialist has been warned for misogynistic posts and for insulting another member of the forum.

---

Also, Brian, you need to stop spamming multiple threads on the same topic. Also, trying to pass off ChatCPT texts as your own work is a no no. Stop that.

Have a nice day.
 
James R said:
Moderator note: BrianHarwarespecialist has been warned for misogynistic posts and for insulting another member of the forum.

---

Also, Brian, you need to stop spamming multiple threads on the same topic. Also, trying to pass off ChatCPT texts as your own work is a no no. Stop that.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
It’s my work James first of all terms and conditions of ChatGPT states that they will not take ownership of any work even if it was created from scratch.

ChatGPT has no agency and can only follow instructions the clearer your instructions the better quality of text it produces, you must take charge of its comprehension that’s your job, so to respond to your claim that I was passing of ChatGPT as my work clearly shows me you don’t understand artificial intelligence, and for the record it’s my work I have ownership, copyright and publication dates for this work, and I checked it my self so far correct, my theory is more accurate than general relativity, it makes more accurate predictions.

I understand you don’t understand it, and no one else here on the site understands it, and that’s okay, it’s expected. Remember AI could not accomplish this without me it would not know what to do, I gave it specific instructions to build my thoughts in my head, in which it did with impeccable accuracy!

For the record the reason no one comes here anymore it’s because you lack members such as Rpenner and Plasma Inferno, just like a movie with out interesting characters it’s hard to get anyone to care about what it is you are doing this site can die tomorrow and no one would care especially when have stuck up snobby members that refuse to do any math like Rpenner always did without asking instead of arguing, and typing useless words.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top