Recent content by weirdoguy

I'll be in the minority but I didn't like his comments in the couple of last years. Although I liked them more way back, when I started using PF. In my opinion he started to be overly passive-aggresive, and I've noticed that some people turn that way with age. And it's a no-go for me, no one is...

Yes. That's why they are used in classical filed theories. There are also k-tangent bundles that kind of deal with derivatives of order k.

But do you know someone for whom this was actually a problem?

Besides all above, I think that your attitude towards this problem is what holds you back, even at the subconsious level. You are wrong, period. Shift your focus from trying to convince us (you won't) to answering question "Why am I wrong?". Our minds can play really tricky games on us. Your...

Why are you wasting your time doing this instead of just learning what is already known?

It's on the top of the page:

This whole thread rotates around the point that @gen x can't see a mathematical fact about kinematics without using math. I think that to adopt a frame in which this point moves 'forward', @gen x needs to learn the math :wink:

This is simply wrong. Energy is a property of matter, one of many.

It is a covector, but that does not mean that angular momentum also is.

You ignored other questions @A.T. asked. Where is the maths?

Then stop using sentences that needs to be backed up by references.

Modern Ramanujan would certainly know proper maths. If not, he would not be modern Ramanujan.

I like seeing crackpots banned. Especially when stupidity is triumphing in real life.

Oh that's tricky, because I usually trip over the last one, because I loose focus too early, so I guess it's more important for me. Long live astigmatism 🥸

Yes, but still some people wouldn't call those tensors "the same object". Especially most mathematical physicists/mathematicians that I know, including myself. But yes, physicists with their sloppy use of language would :wink: