That whole article seems contrived nonsense. Why 11? Who selected the 11? Why not 23 or 42 or top 100?
> It's pretty obvious that the author of that article is not up to date > as he did not include the three most beautiful leading edge equations. > > Potter's Law: x = e^(i^n * m*pi) = e^(i^n * (i^n * > k)) > ( Modification Euler's Formula e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 to model being and > becoming.)
Someone commented on the livescience article how they left out Euler's formula as not good enough to be one of the ...err... 11.
> Trebert's Law: G=EMC^2 > ( G / c^2 = energy1 * energy2) ( The Pope doesn't like this expression.) > ( Modification of Newton's and Einstein's Laws to put God and G into the > picture.) > > Archimedes Plutonium Law: V = i * (I" cos^2(A)) = I * R > ( Modification of Ohm's Law taking Malus's law into account to model > conductivity. ) > > And where is hanson's equation that models oscillators in a gravity field? > > I might mention that Trebert's Law seems to be flawed as > it implies that the product of the energy of any two bodies > is always equal to the constant ( G / c^2 ) > > but note that hanson's equation is simplier and > works better the Relativity, > > Archimedes Plutonium may be on to something big, > > and Potter's Law is a bullet proof model > of being and becoming.
It's far far better to get self promotion than never to realize that that is exactly what those 11 equations served.