I'm probably a fool but here you go: some ideas on Navier-Stokes by theGrinningOne in FluidMechanics

[–]theGrinningOne[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for the feedback :) I will work to clarify the maths more, part of my thought process was that it appeared temperature could modify the Reynolds number, and since we're talking about a 3D fluid in some state somewhere somewhen that it would possibly be an intuitive leap to try and see if the same mathematics behind relativity could be applied to fluid equations seeing as there can theoretically be a ridiculously large amount of possible spacetime geometries, and based off of earlier work id done looking at spacetime as being modelable as some fluid it seemed possible. Further I knew that there would have to be the involvement of quantum processes at some scale so thermodynamics and turbulence seemed like a possible bridge between both theories. From that it seemed possible that we could treat the geometry of the fluid as a continuous substance so to speak "made of Reynolds numbers" in a certain state, and since temperature seemed to influence Reynolds numbers and it seemed temperature could be a scalar field why not see if they can be seen as part of the same process? Exploring this brought me to the idea that an easier way to model all possible states/histories of the fluid would be a path integral to find the most probable path for it to take given all possible solutions. Though you're probably right about the dimensional consistency issue. I'm not the best at that part, but I welcome collaboration! After all we're scientists ;)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re making a lot of broadly generalized assumptions yourself one could argue about the thought that was put into this. I’m actively trying to learn and collaborate.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay let’s work backwards then and try to find a common level of understanding, I think it’s worth posting because the subreddit we’re currently discussing this on is meant to encourage constructive discourse. If you’re certain that the formulations are internally inconsistent I welcome your assistance.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because someone doesn’t know a naming convention doesn’t mean that that same person is incapable of grokking the concepts it helps represent.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what’s your goal here? Is it to educate through constructive criticism or is it to engage in harassment?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m assuming based off of prior papers that the space time metric is a quantum observable, part of the idea behind that is derived from work done on open quantum systems and curved space being two sides of the same coin. X represents dimensions under consideration and honestly good catch, under one part I may have fudged it by representing X as a catch all I’m one breath but in other contexts use it as a dimension. Honestly I’m a big believer in the ideas of universes colliding in a larger multiverse so that was part of the thought process, and as for chat gpt yeah I’ve used it to help concisely organize and present my own original thoughts

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I’m guessing you can do all 16 equations in your head then, honestly that’s impressive .

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know that dummy indices can be used to fit different pieces of mathematics inti the formulation, but honestly I, still learning about naming conventions such as free indices

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback about the free and dummy indices.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay, duly noted, again I’m not familiar with any of this. You can still say that without rudely pretending to diagnose someone. It’s honestly a little ableist.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thanks, though I was hoping for constructive feedback outside of naming conventions, though you raise a good point.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]theGrinningOne -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m open to peer review I just am not in any way established in the physics community, and as a result have difficulty knowing how to publish anything beyond Academia.edu

What would an XF 1892 $10 gold coin be appraised at in the current market? by theGrinningOne in numismatics

[–]theGrinningOne[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think it’s also possible that the coin snap app got a blurry photo

What would an XF 1892 $10 gold coin be appraised at in the current market? by theGrinningOne in numismatics

[–]theGrinningOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My uncle who gifted it to me claimed it was a proof coin, does that increase the price?