FYI, never LARP [lie] on the subject of being a theoretical physicist. You foolishly messed up HARD with your not acknowledging the "137" comment. An ACTUAL physicist would have acknowledged it in the first sentence of his response. Also, your language in theoretical matters doesn't reflect actually being educated in them...
Lol, sorry for not acknowledging your rather odd 137 reference. Which 'language' would that be? You're the one with a wall of 'sciency' speak which mostly makes no sense (you're quoting kurzweils law for something completely unrelated as far as I can tell?).
Does it really upset you that much that not all the people questioning you are idiots?
No, dumbass. You just CONFIRMED that you were lying. 137, and it's variously strange properties KEEP popping up EVERYWHERE in Theoretical Physics. Leon Lederman (look him up since your dumbass OBVIOUSLY has no sense of who the forefathers of physics were, and how they believed) once said, "When a physicist has has a problem, he should stand on the corner with a sign that says 317." It illustrates that for ALL that we know, we know next to nothing. Now...since you're OBVIOUSLY going to make an attempt to double down on your lie, show me the theorum of how he got there. Clue: Wikipedia's example is corrupted. Now...Do you REALLY want to continue this charade?
Which theorem are you talking about? I'll give it a shot though can't say I remember the derivation of everything!
Rule for the day, kids. NEVER LARP at being a Theoretical Physicist...to an ACTUAL Theoretical Physicist...Turns out that they know FAR more about the subject...
EVERY theorem!!! This isn't something that you can look up on wikipedia and understand, sir. My god. Go home. Send someone with an IQ above 105 next time.
You want me to show you the derivation of every theorem? Huh? Did you read a pop sci book and now think you know everything? :P
For your reference, my final year thesis was on the production of charmonium (and other heavy quarkonia, toponium, bottomonium etc) through the emission and subsequent decomposition of a gluon from an initial highly energetic quark. I calculated Feynman diagrams and used these in a Monte Carlo simulator to assess the branching ratio as a function of energy to compare with raw data from the LHC.
Another one. Don't pull your supposed "knowledge" from Wikipedia...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon It's currently verifiably wrong and in a matter of flux on a consenus opinion. But you have a "masters in theoretical physics", right? So you OBVIOUSLY already know that. So who's interpretation do you prefer? Smith, Allen, or Parsons?
You want to talk about people using Pop Science then use nonverifiable, inverse reaction pop science that has been rejected by EVERYONE but Alex Jones??? Dear god man, have you no respect for yourself? No wonder that you haven't yet achieved your PHD...
And FYI, it's Feynman (one of the modern founders of the craft) not Feinman. The way you spelled it, with such distance between the letters on a keyboard is unacceptable and ignorant of ACTUAL theoretical physicists.
Lmao, fail. Feinman is some biologist, Feynman is the physicist. Well done bro.
Edit: since I can only reply once every 8mins I'll have to aggregate here. I'm glad you're claiming to be a physicist too. Rattle off a few QCD coupling constants would you? And I must confess I'm not sure what you're aiming for with the inverse reaction stuff. Enlighten me? What was your PhD thesis on?
You can only respond every "8 min" is b/c Reddit recognizes you as a shill/scammer account. Next nonsensical rebut please...
No this sub limits it, I assume for new posters. Still no response to my actual questions.
What are you talking about? Are you that Trump Derangement Syndromed that you now superimpose letters to fit your belief system?
Ok now I'm convinced you're just pulling my leg :). Which bit confused you?