The Ricci Flow For The Scalar Curvature And Ricci Tensor

[Shustaire]

Do you know what the d'Alembertian is?

 

Because there is lot more to what you quoted than just the operator. 

 

then you challenged me with this but didn't understand it yourself.

 

BIG MISTAKE

[Shustaire]

What are you on about?

 

Again, you haven't demonstrated anything, you actually are acting like a mad man. You haven't demonstrated anything and the equations are absolutely correct. The heat equation is a partial differential equation.

 

You actually have no clue what you are on about you mad ****er. 

 

Yes the pde is a partial look at the friging link I provided its in the first friggin chapter for the heat equation

[Shustaire]

ROFLMAO

 

tell me did the meaning differential of a function not mean anything to your work as well?

 

ie see image on the right.

 

ie a flipping string or wave whichever you prefer.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_of_a_function

 

is your only defense to being shown lacking resorting to insult when shown you couldn't have possibly derived that equation without understanding these basics of differential calculus ?

 

prove me wrong and show your mathematical proof of the equation I quoted.

 

here it is again.

 

[math]\frac{\partial R}{\partial t} = \alpha \Box^2 R = -\frac{\alpha}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 R}{\partial t^2} + \alpha \nabla^2 R[/math]

Edited December 31, 2017 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

You mad bastard. I don't need to do anything for you; secondly, you have nothing to prove wrong because you haven't demonstrated anything. A suggestion, go learn some latex and learn how to coherently ask questions aided with equations you yourself can write down.

 

It may be too challenging, but give it a try 

 

roflmao I teach Calculus I happen to be a professor fool

[Shustaire]

There is nothing challenging about latex roflmao

 

[math]\array{ \mathfrak{g} \times X && \overset{R}{\longrightarrow} && T X \\ & {\llap{pr_2}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\rlap{p}} \\ && X }[/math]

[math]\array{e^+ \searrow &&\nearrow P^-\\&\leadsto &\\ e^-\nearrow &&\searrow P^+}[/math]

Edited December 31, 2017 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

There is nothing challenging about latex roflmao

 

[math]\array{ \mathfrak{g} \times X && \overset{R}{\longrightarrow} && T X \\ & {\llap{pr_2}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\rlap{p}} \\ && X }[/math]

[math]\array{e^+ \searrow &&\nearrow P^-\\&\leadsto &\\ e^-\nearrow &&\searrow P^+}[/math]

 

well there is your latex proof would you like to see a pmatrix ?

Edited December 31, 2017 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Now right hand rule to tensors.

\

the thumb points to [math]\mu \bullet \nu[/math]

the index finger points to [math]\mu[/math]

the second finger points to [math]\nu[/math]

 

so if u and v are vectors [math]\phi is the angle between them and n is the unit vector perpendicular to both u and v then such that {u,v,n} forms a right hand system. then

 

 [math]\mu \times\ nu=|u|v| sin\phi n[/math]

Edited December 31, 2017 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Now right hand rule to tensors.

\

the thumb points to [math]\mu \bullet \nu[/math]

the index finger points to [math]\mu[/math]

the second finger points to [math]\nu[/math]

 

so if u and v are vectors [math]\phi is the angle between them and n is the unit vector perpendicular to both u and v then such that {u,v,n} forms a right hand system. then

 

 [math]\mu \times\ nu=|u|v| sin\phi n[/math]

[Shustaire]

And because of the source, this account your using is probably a sock, of either Vmedvil or Polymath.

 

Nope guess again

[Shustaire]

sure latex is easy just use [math] then [/math]

[Vmedvil]

Excuse me ?

 

Are you sure you know that the D'Alembertian is a 1 dimensional wave equation?

 

Thank you for proving to me you plaguarized the above

 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/dAlembertsEquation.html

 

I was right about this site, its full of crackpots and no moderation.

 

Tell me did the fact that Reimann geometry deals with curve fitting escape you with the use of tangent vectors of which you can have left and right hand tangent vectors escape you.

 

You derived the above my arse.

 

Maybe you should study the connection to PDE's in terms of Reimann geometry a bit closer.

 

What Shustaire, No it isn't it is 4-D Invariant Space-time Partial Differential formulation.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

Yes I quickly corrected the ''calculus'' professor as she claims to be, on this one. They also claim to be the wife of Mordred, because I caught them stealing latex from Mordreds post. They have also informed me in private messaging, that she helps her husband with his physics.

 

I really hope this is all joke. 

See, I thought that when she said my husband was a physics person for a moment I was like "Is this Mordred's wife or Girlfriend" seriously that thought crossed my mind too.

[Vmedvil]

My first hand personal opinion, is she is a nutcase. I actually like Mordred, but she's been stalking me in private messages and won't take ''no'' for an answer. 

 

Then, I thought this could also be Scarlet, which was a old math friend of mine, but she knew more about physics then this person. If it was her she would understand this geometry.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

wow

 

wife of mordred

[Shustaire]

Yes I did mention in another thread my husband is the physics expert.

[Shustaire]

Agreed back on target.

 

When you model curvature via freefall your modelling particle motion due to intrinsic curvature for Poisson.

 

Any curve is form fitted via the same nathematical methods as used in analytical geometry under calculus. This includes what one thinks of as wave equations.

 

The calculus of variation components are identical.

 

Think about the hyperbolic curve under SR for example. Then look at the coordinate basis. If you to use the lightcone gauge itself as one example or null geodesic the symmetry is literally plus or minus x. Via the right hand rule your quadrants.

 

Here if you don't wish to believe me.

Here is an arxiv that details cauchy and Poisson. It even shows wolframalpha plots where you can see the similarities to wavefunctions.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.04733&ved=0ahUKEwiC9brFn7XYAhXI_qQKHTvxAPwQFggfMAA&usg=AOvVaw1nHsrPGxsCmZbRncknThj4

 

This one is specifically the Laplacian and D'Alambertian operators where it compares the two.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.emis.de/journals/DM/v12-1/art3.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwib8qWXorXYAhUL6aQKHX7jA4wQFgggMAA&usg=AOvVaw3ICAPJsyT-HEOr4j-xQ7sL

 

Here is another arxiv covering the geometric wave equations

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4706&ved=0ahUKEwib8qWXorXYAhUL6aQKHX7jA4wQFggnMAI&usg=AOvVaw2bPRahwj8yLExsX_g6d8wZ

Edited December 31, 2017 by Shustaire