User talk:Rjowsey

Let's be honest now...
Did you or not create User:Siddhant Singhji‎ as a sock to appear "confused" with general relativity because of its apparently "extraordinarily complicated" maths, so that you could respond and include your complex spacetime framework as a possible answer? M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Rjowsey (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it now, and will leave it here. Thanks for being honest as requested and good luck with your mathematical framework and eventual physical theory. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dude, I don't have any theory! I have some very useful math. And I study science history, for fun. Rjowsey (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maxwell is one of my favourite dudes, in the history of science. I started messing with electronics and radio when I was 12 years old, the youngest guy in NZ to get a ham radio license, age 16. Built all the gear, from scratch. Employed by the University of Auckland as a research assistant, age 19. Helped with gravitational wave research in 1972, then studied physics with Prof Roy Kerr (the spinning black holes guy) at University of Canterbury. So I've had a life-long fascination with black holes and gravity, but by nature, I'm a generalist, not a specialist. I was reading a biography on Maxwell, and realised that his math used a complex manifold, with 3 extra imaginary dimensions. The great divide between GR and QM is that QM has complexity, GR doesn't. So I had a go at putting SR into a couple complex planes, one for position & momentum, the other for time & energy. And it worked. Beautifully. Spits out exactly the same numbers as the classical Lorentz transform. So I went back to Maxwell, and found the clues he'd left in his Treatise, deliberately, because he loved puzzles. So I plugged his M = L3/T2 into the Planck Units, and out fell 5 spatial dimensions. Gotta have 2 extra dimensions of space. They must be imaginary, because MATH. So I built a simulator to generalise the solution for special relativity, over the entire imaginary plane. The 2 Dirac spinors fell out, plus a whole heap of elegant, simple, beautiful MATH which solves GR and quantum spin. I tutor some gifted kids in physics, so I showed them this math, and they loved it. So did their science teachers, because these kids knew more about relativity than they did. Kids badgered me to write a WP article, so I tried. End of story.  Rjowsey (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, Maxwell's frame was: (x, y, z, iλ1, jλ2, kλ3) where ijk = i² = j² = k² ≡ −1 [quaternion metric]. It's the golden key. A unified framework fell out of that, which actually should've been found 100 years ago, it's so bloody obvious (once you've seen it). Rjowsey (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ...provides the coordinate basis for a 6D Quaternion-Kähler manifold, which is the perfect geometry for special and general relativity. And for massless bosons and fermions, per the Dirac equation (with π/4 phase offsets). High-school math. Simple, beautiful, elegant. Rjowsey (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In all the edits you've made, you've never written the fundamental equations in your theory that reduce to the Einstein field equations and the Schrödinger equation in the relevant limits (or at least some equations which reproduce their respective predictions). You contradict yourself by saying you have no theory just the maths, but then go on to say you have made some progress in developing physics. If what you say really is correct then publish and get your Nobel prize now. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (3r+3i) 6D GR has already been done: Einstein & Straus ca. 1953 Rjowsey (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Garrett Lisi's latest E8 paper, due to be up on arXiv in a few days, has the math you seek (pertaining to the n-dimensional complex framework I'm exploring). Rjowsey (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can follow his math, that is... Rjowsey (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As usual no field or governing equations of some type, no convincing mathematical deduction or arguments that
 * "the 2 Dirac spinors fell out, plus a whole heap of elegant, simple, beautiful MATH which solves GR and quantum spin.",
 * nor for when you
 * "had a go at putting SR into a couple complex planes, one for position & momentum, the other for time & energy. And it fucking worked. Beautifully. Spits out exactly the same numbers as the classical Lorentz transform".
 * More than presenting what your formalism really involves, you just give vague and incomplete wordy descriptions, present the definitions of complex numbers and quaternions which everyone already knows, presented tables of units which can be found elsewhere, present yourself as an enthusiastic awe-inspired disciple of Maxwell and Einstein as if you really knew and studied under them, and as an awe-inspiring example for teenagers look up to and follow, and swear. Since your theory doesn't even seem to describe quantum spin correctly, and you don't seem to understand spin (and still have not defined your version of "total spin" despite being asked in a section you deleted), here and now I'll leave this thread alone. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * describing a 6d object in a 4d coord basis loses information. the basics of RJowsey's 6d math is posted on his user page. nobody understands quantum spin, afaik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.88.188 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that there is one more suspected sock around. Maybe time to get an admin involved. YohanN7 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Relocates to New Zealand Auckland Spark New Zealand Trading Ltd, just him logged out obviously while pretending to be someone else. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 09:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL! That wasn't me, that was an old high-school bud, we used to build ham radio gear together, he asked about what I've been up to (I stayed with him a few days, for a screen-free mental health break), he read through the article, poked around in the user page, muttered something about cuss-words, asked if I minded if he commented, I said "go for it"...


 * The Crackpot Index. by John Baez. YohanN7 (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hahaha. The first sign of a crackpot is they're 100% certain their theory is the correct one. I don't have a theory, just maths (which I trust), but as to how I'm interpreting and comprehending the physical implications of that math, I could be completely wrong. Shrug. I'm OK with that.


 * Hahaha? No theory? just math? What kind of math does it might to be? Give us a hint at least. You have said that Einstein was on your track. You also say that all of your students (followers) of your work (referring to sixteen-year-olds and old friends), easily can get it? Can you give a clue to us mere mortals? Just in maths?


 * If you're genuinely interested in the mathematical framework I've developed, I could post you some equations via email. Drop me a note at richard@jowsey.org.


 * http://www.jowsey.org/physics/SpaceTime.pdf


 * I'm hearing crickets. Cat got your tongue, or is the complex math a little over your head? Any questions now...?


 * Let's see what you make of this: http://www.jowsey.org/physics/Relativity6D.pdf Good luck, genius!

\


 * You are right. It is over my head. You must get it published. Tried a peer review? The referencing is also impeccable. Einstein, Carroll, a reference to itself and a reference to your wiki talk page. YohanN7 (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought "Carroll" referred to Sean M. Carroll who wrote the Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. Instead it is Lewis Carroll who wrote Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. The overall paper is hardly any different to the content you added to WP. Wow. 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Feeling too much friction from other wikipedians?
Try writing for http://en.wikibooks.org instead. Original research allowed. Give it your own title. Need not fit into encyclopediac format. You could aim your prose to a particular audience, eg high school smarties, or whatever, if you choose to. Or even try http://wikinfo.org even more accepting. Cheers. GangofOne (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea. I don't actually want to publish "original research", but I've come to understand that even "original math" is frowned on (even when it's simple basic math that a 9th-grader could handle comfortably). *sigh* I'm happy to follow WP's "rules", now I know what they are, in practice. The friction doesn't bother me. I've too many years of zen meditation to let some ill-mannered blowhards bother me. I try and learn something from each commenter, even if they sound really pissed at me. Every insult is a learning opportunity, I reckon. Works better that way. Cheers! Rjowsey (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

L/T
Just wondering, did you ever put the L/T stuff in a new article? I think I agree that it is too much for Dimensional analysis but not that it doesn't belong here at all. I am not a wikipedia expert, but I think as an article in its own, and with a reference from Dimensional analysis, it would work. I think you can extract it from the diffs if you don't have it somewhere else. I suppose I don't actually understand L/T, but I do understand using systems where fundamental constants are given as unity, and the units factored out. Gah4 (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I put it all in a paper, just finished. I'll external link to it in a couple places. There's a goldmine in there! http://www.jowsey.org/physics/SpaceTime.pdf

Your edits on Tim Hunt
Your edits don't seem to show any awareness of why original research is not appopriate for encyclopedic writing, and how it differs from summarising what independent reliable sources say about a subject. I would strongly suggest that you make yourself aware of that very important distinction before attempting further edits to that article. -- ℕ  ℱ  22:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite so. How would you suggest describing (in an "independent" and "reliable" way) the unmitigated harassment of Sir Tim and his family by tabloid reporters, etc, such that the narrative is more "appropriate for encyclopedic writing"? --Rjowsey


 * Your opinion, and my opinion, about the rights and wrongs of some great injustice isn't in the slightest bit relevant to encyclopedic writing. That is a fundamental point, that many editors find themselves unable to accept. Those who cannot accept that usually find themselves in rapidly escalating conflicts with their fellow editors, and that rarely ends well. See for example Verifiability,_not_truth. All that we can try to do, and what we must do according to the fundamental principles of wikipedia, is to summarise what independent reliable published sources have written about a subject. To adopt a different path is to open the door to people who want to write about their pet 'truth' fringe theory simply because they believe in it, rather than because it is widely accepted by the scientific mainstream.
 * Now, to deal specifically with the case of Hunt. There is broad acceptance that he made some comments which were viewed by others, rightly or wrongly, as offensive to women in science. That he intended them to be a joke, is also generally accepted by the sources, and I think the article as it currently stands tries to reflect that viewpoint. To quote The Observer there was a "particularly vicious social media campaign" - and again this quote is used in the article. Now that the context of his comments have become clearer, there have been a lot of supportive comments from well known figures in science and beyond, who highlight that he has been treated unfairly and disproportionately, and again,I hope this is reflected well in the text of the article as it stands. However, even his supporters are at pains to point out that those comments were unhelpful and should not have been made - see for example the quotes from Brian Cox, and Paul Nurse. He has of course apologised for them. All that information appeared in independent published sources and is summarised in the article. If you have information in published reliable sources that we can look to add, then do suggest it. If however you have personal opinions, or unpublished information that you wish to add, I hope you will reconsider and take time to understand why it cannot be appropriate, any more than it would be for people with the polar opposite opinions similarly unsupported by reference to independent sources. -- ℕ  ℱ  01:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Point(s) taken. I'll find something, when I next have an idle moment. --Rjowsey

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Complex spacetime
Have a look at some of the additional publications suggested in the section Talk:Complex_spacetime on the talk page of Complex time, some of these may be helpful in support of the idea of complex spacetime. 192.54.94.255 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)