Griffiths' book on QM
Mike
teaching?
It seems to cover the essentials as well as introducing the
philosophical problems of QM.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1107534540.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Do they subscribe to your thesis that
| "Events in spacetime do not form a vector space because
| they do not have an inverse. A requirement of a vector
| space V is that its elements have an inverse:
| (X)+(-X) = 0
| as Androcles already pointed out to deaf ears. Translation
| symmetry does not imply there is such inverse."
?
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Do you have any objection that mathematical artifacts do not
necessarily correspond to physical reality?
Do you agree that:
A. A requirement of a vector space V is that its elements have an
inverseb(X)+(-X) = 0
B. That time translation symmetry does not imply time reversal?
also
C. Do you have to say anything about the book?
All my theses in these ng's are clear whether right or wrong. YOu only
thesis it seems to ne criticism.
Criticism without offering a counerargument is a sign of lower life
forms.
Dink-Donk, the bell tolls for thee...
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1107543403.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I usually don't engage in discussion with proven trolls and/or
imbeciles.
Squeal, pig, squeal :-)
Dirk Vdm
John Schoenfeld
Mike wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:1107534540.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > Any comments on Griffith's book on QM, second ed., for senior
level
> > > teaching?
> > >
> > > It seems to cover the essentials as well as introducing the
> > > philosophical problems of QM.
> >
> > Do they subscribe to your thesis that
> > | "Events in spacetime do not form a vector space because
> > | they do not have an inverse. A requirement of a vector
> > | space V is that its elements have an inverse:
> > | (X)+(-X) = 0
> > | as Androcles already pointed out to deaf ears. Translation
> > | symmetry does not imply there is such inverse."
> > ?
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Do you have any objection that mathematical artifacts do not
> necessarily correspond to physical reality?
>
> Do you agree that:
>
> A. A requirement of a vector space V is that its elements have an
> inverseb(X)+(-X) = 0
>
> B. That time translation symmetry does not imply time reversal?
Causality does.
Mike
You got nothing to say, proven fact. You spend your whole misearable
days maintaining a site where you store your impotence and psychotic
behavior.
I had enough with you schizo, a killfile will do it and then a clean of
the Dirt you left around making pooppies all over the place.
Mike
Eric Gisse
Mike wrote:
> Any comments on Griffith's book on QM, second ed., for senior level
> teaching?
Griffith's E&M book is nice.
>
> It seems to cover the essentials as well as introducing the
> philosophical problems of QM.
I wonder if you have the math for it.
>
> Mike
FrediFizzx
Mike
Thanks for the link Fred
Mike
Mike
I am just over with factorials
Dinky! = Donkey
Ha ha ha ha ha
If you need any help with math let me know Goosse
Mike
Eric Gisse
Mike wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> > > Any comments on Griffith's book on QM, second ed., for senior
level
> > > teaching?
> >
> > Griffith's E&M book is nice.
> >
> > >
> > > It seems to cover the essentials as well as introducing the
> > > philosophical problems of QM.
> >
> > I wonder if you have the math for it.
> >
> > >
> > > Mike
>
> I am just over with factorials
You do know that the factorial function has a more general form for
non-integers, right? Do you know the name of the function?
>
> Dinky! = Donkey
>
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha
>
> If you need any help with math let me know Goosse
Gisse. People have such a hard time spelling what is right in front of
them. Then again, reading is hard.
Anyway, lets see.
Complex analysis? nah. too fucking easy. I'm sure you know de Moivre's
identity...
computational? na. unless you don't know euler's method, that is...
intro to proofs? even the bubbleheads that inspired "math is hard" get
that class.
How about differential geometry? That class, while not breaking my
balls, is giving me discomfort. It rocks.
Here...you should be able to do this problem, even without any exposure
to differential geometry.
This is cribbed from "Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces" by
Manfredo P. Docamro.
pg 11, #10
Let alpha: I ---> R^3 be a parameterized curve. Let [a,b] C I and set
alpha(a) = p, alpha(b) = q
a) Show that, for any constant vector v, modulus(v)=1, that (q-p) *DOT*
v = int(b,a,alpha'(t)*DOT*v * dt <= int(b,a,modulus(alpha'(t))dt)
This shit doesn't translate into ACSII very well, so I will leave you
with that part of the problem. If you have had any exposure to
calculus, you shouldn't have any problem.
>
> Mike
FrediFizzx
Your welcome. You will need to study up on matrix and linear algebra a bit
to more fully understand this text. I hired a tutor from Cal Tech to help
me with it for a few weeks. It was well worth it.
FrediFizzx
tj Frazir
UP is still a gain in mass.
gravity is a push to less mass.
Gravity is the energy gain pushing the atom. ,,tell us how
gravity moves mass. Im doing it and proving it with the math . Your too
stupid to understand atoms push them selves to less mass. So then how
could you do the math ? You did not know the mass gain was doing
the pushing or how. All you had is a bunch of idias.
F is identical to the mass gain pushing the wieght of the atom.
Identical as in THE LAW.
Re: gravitons are for dumbasses.
The gain in mass is F pushing te wieght of the atom.
Newton had is right, F = dp/dt is right on!
"
F is the gain in mass and up is a gain in mass SAM . M is the
wieght
of the atom befor the gain in mass .
Gravity is the energy slope across the atom. all the mass of the
atom falls twards its center. Atoms change mass at C. So the tom
has more mass falling twards its center from one side than the other and
the atom pushes its self down the energy slope . V will be the
same for evry atom as the mass gain pushes the wieght and the gain is
allways proportinal to the mass. SAM wrote
F
= ma
Here F is the applied force, m is the mass of the
particle, and a = dv/dt is the particle's acceleration, with v being
the particle's velocity. This equation, together with the principle
that bodies act symmetrically on one another--so that the force
particle A feels from particle B is equal to the force B feels from
A--is the basis for understanding particle dynamics".
"Newton's law completely describes all the phenomena
of classical mechanics...."