I know I know I have published stuff like this before and over again. But that was also years ago and now I do it again it is still not boring to me. After all the professional math professors still are not capable of finding those beautiful exponential circles and curves simply because they all imitate each other. And they imitate each other with how to use and find a so called conjugate. And if you use the conjugate only as some form of ‘flipping a number into the real axis’ all your calculation will turn into garbage. Anyway by sheer coincidence I came across two videos of math folks doing it all wrong. One of the videos is even about the 3D circular numbers although that guy names them triplex numbers.
You can do a lot with exponential circles and curves. A very basic thing is making new de Moivre identities. From a historical point of view these are important because the original de Moivre identity predates the first exponential circle from Euler by about 50 years. In that sense new de Moivre identities are very seldom so you might expect some interest of the professional math community…
Come on, give me a break, professional math professors do a lot of stuff but paying attention to new de Moivre identities is not among what they do. But that is well known so lets move on to the four pictures of our update. After that I will show you the two video’s.
Let us proceed with the two video’s. Below you see a picture from the first video that is about 3D circular numbers and of course the conjugate is done wrong because math folks can only do that detail wrong:
By all standards the above video is very good. Ok the conjugate is not correct and may be the logarithm is handled very sloppy because a good log is also a way to craft exponential circles. But hey: after 30 years I have learned not to complain that much…
The next video is from Michael Penn. He has lots of videos out and if you watch them you might think there is nothing wrong with that guy. And yes most of the time there is nothing wrong with him until he starts doing all kinds of algebra’s and of course doing the conjugate thing wrong. Michael is doing only two dimensional albebra’s in the next video but if you deviate from the complex plane very soon you must use the conjugate as it is supposed to be: The upper row of the matrix representation.
Here a screen shot with the content of the crimes commited:
Here is his vid:
Ok, that was it for this appendix to the previous post.
It is past midnight, this evening I brewed hopefully a lovely beer. It is late so let me keep the intro short. The last time I often lack stuff for new posts because most of the theory of 3D complex and circular numbers has been posted in this collection of 200+ posts. And you cannot keep it repeating over and over again, if all those years in the past the math professionals did just nothing, why would they change their behaviour in the future? Beside that I do not want have anything to do with them any more, it is and stays a collection of overpaid weirdo’s and there is nothing that can change that. On the other hand one of the most famous expressions in math is and stays the exponential circle in the complex plane. That stuff like e^it = cos t + isin t is what makes many hearts beat a tiny bit faster. So when someone comes along stating that he found an exponential circle in spaces like 3D complex numbers, you might expect some kind of attention. But no, once more the math professionals prove they are not very professional. Whatever happens over there I do not know. May be they think because they could not find this in about 350 years no one can so it must all be faulty. For me it was a big disappointment to get discriminated so much, on the other hand it validates that math professors just are not scientists. Ok they have their salary, their social standing, their list of publications and so on and so on. But putting lickstick on a pig does not make it a shining beauty, it stays a pig. So a math professor can have his or her prized title of professor, that does not make such a person a scientist of course. At best they show some form of imitating how a scientist should behave but again does such behaviour make these people scientists? Anyway a couple of days back at the end of a long day I typed in a search phrase in a website with the cute name duckduckgo.com. Sometimes I check if websites like that track this very website and I just searched for “3D complex numbers”. The first picture that emerged was indeed from this website and it was from the year 2017. I looked at it and yes deep in my brain it said I had seen it before but what was it about? Well it was the product of two coordinate functions of the exponential circle in 3D. It is a very cute graph, you can compare it to say the product of the sine and cosine function in the complex plane. So I want to avoid repeating all that has been written in the past of this website but why not one more post about the 3D exponential circles?
In the end I decided to show you how likely one of those deeply incompetent “professional” math professors would handle the concept of conjugation. Of course one hundred % of these idiots and imbeciles would do it as “This is just a flip in the real axis or in the x-axis” and totally spoil the shere-cone equation and only find weird garbage that indeed better cannot be published. After all our overpaid idiots still haven’t found the 3D complex numbers, I am still living on my tax payer unemployment benefit and life, well life will go on. But it is not only math, with physics there are similar problems and they all boil down to that often an idiot does not realize he or she is an idiot.
But let’s post the six pictures, may I will add an addendum in a few days, may be not. Here we go:
Ok, may be in will write one more appendix about how these kind of coordinate functions of exponential circles give rise to also new de Moivre identities. That is of interest because the original de Moivre identity predates the Euler exponential circle by about 50 years.
Yet once more: Likely there is just nothing that will wake up the branch of overpaid weirdo’s known as the math professors… So for today & late at night that was it. Thanks for your attention.
It is no secret that I think electrons are not “tiny magnets” having two magnetic poles but that electrons are magnetic monopoles just like they are electric monopoles. Viewing electrons as small tiny magnetis leads to all kinds of logical contradictions. For example a permanent magnet is always explained as a thing where all electron spins of unpaired electrons align and as such together they build that macroscopic magnetic field as you know from stuff like a bar magnet. But in chemistry an important binding element in molecules is the electron pair. Yet now there is something like the Pauli exclusion principle and the two electrons must have opposite spin. End example. So in a permanent magnet the electrons must align in order to be attractive to each other while in chemistry the opposite must happen. My dear reader this is not logical. Also, why do we find only electron pairs? Well if you look at it as there are two kinds of electrons with both a magnetic charge either ‘north pole’ or a ‘ south pole’ charge, that explains why we only observe electron pairs. If the ‘tiny magnet’ model was true, we should observe all kinds of electron configurations like 5 electrons in a circle or whatever you can make with tiny magnets. What I self consider a strange thing is that people from the physics community never ever themselves say that all their views on magnetism are often not logical. Are they really that stupid or do they self censor in order not to look stupid?
Anyway five years back in the year 2017 I was studying a new way of making computer memory by IBM: so called racetrack memory in nano wires. I was highly puzzled by that because one of the main researchers said that you cannot move the domain walls of magnetic domains with magnetic fields. You could move the domains themselves but not the walls and I was as puzzled as can be. Yet that same day I found a possible answer: the magnetic domains of say iron can be moved by magnetic fields because they have a surplus of a particular kind of electrons. So two magnetic domains separated by a domain wall must have opposite magnetic charges. In the next picture you get the idea of what IBM tried to do:
It was a cute idea but IBM had to give up on it because they did not use insights that are logical but kept on hanging to the tiny magnet model.
So in the long pdf that is squarely based on the official version of electron spin (the tiny magnet model) has all kinds of flaws in it. For example in the next picture that all does not pan out because those small arrows are not there in reality if electrons carry magnetic charge just like they carry electric charge:
Ok for me it is an experiment to try include a pdf file, if it fails I will hang this pdf in the pdf directory of the other website and link to that file.
I leave it this way and do not try to make the pdf visible. After all if you are interested in stuff like this you must download it anyway because it is a few hundred pages long. And it is a funny read so now and then, for example yesterday I came across a section where they took the outer product of two (vector) electron spins and I just wonder WHY?
Ok, let me push the button named Publish and say salut to my readers.