Hacker News Reader

Comment by fabatka | Hacker News Reader

Do you understand any of this? This notation is entirely unfamiliar to me, and the text seems like gibberish (my favourite expression is "The most colossally great global unification"). I'm also a bit skeptical about one person answering so much big open questions all by himself, while there are a lot of very bright scientists working on them without this much success.

View on HN

The word "colossal" appears a surprisingly large number of times, as I just posted elsewhere in this thread. And "rupture" is used even more. You would think such important words would have some introduction, unless they are standard terms of art.

Well “rupture” in this context simply describes the rupture of the massive short ranged repulsive boson G5 leading to the rupture of the neutrino leading to the reproduction cascade (see p153) leading to the proportions of normal matter/antimatter and dark matter as measured by the planck telescope right after the big bang.

Can you define "rupture" without using the word "rupture" or "simply" in the explanation?

I find the excessive use of "colossal" and "rupture" to be very suggestive of a Freudian slip implying the author is subconsciously aware that his inspiration followed a massive cerebral hemorrhage.

Interesting assumption from skimming the pdf. Happy to hear your true thoughts once you actually read and fully understand it.

It appears to be hermetic, so I don't see anything that can be studied further.

I'm not sure why you are promoting it if you can't explain it yourself.

Here, for comparison, is what appears to me to be a normal scientific paper that mentions spinors:

Supersymmetry, supergravity theories and the dual spinor model F Gliozzi, J Scherk, D Olive - Nuclear Physics B, 1977

http://cds.cern.ch/record/203097/files/CM-P00061869.pdf

Note that it does not end with "THE END" and it does cite other scientific works.

I do, we are talking about a non-linear spinor dynamic here, omitting the gamma algebra inherited by Dirac spinors. This algebra is well known and omitted as it would render the text confusing indeed as spinor products are of relatively high order (psi-27 and psi-19).

Are there any references to other scientific papers in that document? I didn't see any.

No references. The fundamental idea is based on the Equation of Matter suggested in 1958 by Werner Heisenberg. Anything else is new. This theory solves the problems, Heisenberg introduced with his equation by eleminating the coupling constant l (dim psi = -1/2 hence not observable instead of -3/2) and adding the point split on the right side of the equation which is a consequence of the differential operator on the left side (dx is equivalent to the point split). The rest naturally follows from this fundamental equation.

From skimming the pdf, I didn't notice any conventional equations such as one would find in a paper by someone like Heisenberg. If there were any, could you point one out?

Edit/post script: I also don't see that the word "algebra" is mentioned in the document at all. By comparison the Wikipedia page on spinors uses the word "algebra" 116 times. That seems odd if this theory is based on a deep understanding of spinors.

Side-Remark, page 17:

http://norbert-winter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2014-05...

This is not the same document as originally linked, and regardless, it doesn't cite a source. What's with that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com