Well that wasn't so hard now, was it! Could you have a look at the next bit now?W is mass in this case guest.
Since mass in $$E=mc^2$$ is say in kilograms, I should be able to use this to convert kilograms to quanta, right? And state quanta in Newtons?Just to follow up on this, after posting this equation to the Mass *had* gravity thread no one addressed the equation. I wanted to follow through over there with more about it but that is the Pseudoscience forum for you .
Maybe I could start back over here address the units of measure issue brought up here.
Simplifying $$g_m=q*((-e)+(e*(1-c)))$$ I get $$g_m=-cn$$ where n is the number of quanta in the mass and c is the containment ratio of the mass.
The mass in quanta is $$=n$$
so we can say $$g=-cn$$?
Then if the containment ratio is 10%, then $$g=.1n$$
and if the containment ratio is 20%, the $$g=.2n$$
Using $$E=mc^2$$ and substituting $$n$$
Then $$E={n}c^2$$ where $$n$$ is the mass in quanta, and $$c$$ is the speed of light in kilometers per second.
Then are the units of E in quanta/kilometers/sec^2?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1976154&postcount=27
Since mass in $$E=mc^2$$ is say in kilograms, I should be able to use this to convert kilograms to quanta, right? And state quanta in Newtons?
So with kilograms in terms of quanta and weight = mass times the acceleration of gravity, can't I convert my $$g_m$$ to meters/s^2?Yes, sure.
So with kilograms in terms of quanta and weight = mass times the acceleration of gravity, can't I convert my $$g_m$$ to meters/sec/sec?
And then since force = mass times acceleration I should be able to convert $$F_q$$ to Newtons, i.e. the force of a quantum in Newtons?I don't see why not, unless someone else can point out a reason why not too.
If $$W$$ is invariant, could you please tell me what $$dW$$ is.W again is the invariant mass variable,
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1976154&postcount=27
Since mass in $$E=mc^2$$ is say in kilograms, I should be able to use this to convert kilograms to quanta, right? And state quanta in Newtons?
So with kilograms in terms of quanta and weight = mass times the acceleration of gravity, can't I convert my $$g_m$$ to meters/s^2?
I was wondering if someone could take a second and say if this reasoning so far is correct?And then since force = mass times acceleration I should be able to convert $$F_q$$ to Newtons, i.e. the force of a quantum in Newtons?
If $$W$$ is invariant, could you please tell me what $$dW$$ is.
Well you claim to be doing curvature and the material you posted over in the supernova thread in astronomy, which you claimed you were doing in class, is Cambridge graduate level. Ergo, you claim to be doing material at or beyond Cambridge graduate level. And it's not a lie because apparently things are tougher in Scotland. Despite Oxbridge not even taking a normal national diploma as even a qualification for entrance to their undergraduate courses!And everyone, he is a fucking liar;
''convince me via PM that you'd doing a 'National Diploma' in what is beyond Cambridge graduate material!!''
I never tried to convince him of any of the sorts.
This is a shame - I was hoping you'd spot your mistake. If $$W$$ is constant, then $$dW$$ is zero. Do you know calculus?I don't know Guest. They are variables relativity uses. Why they are used in such a fasion, i guess is purely algebra..
Well you claim to be doing curvature and the material you posted over in the supernova thread in astronomy, which you claimed you were doing in class, is Cambridge graduate level. Ergo, you claim to be doing material at or beyond Cambridge graduate level. And it's not a lie because apparently things are tougher in Scotland. Despite Oxbridge not even taking a normal national diploma as even a qualification for entrance to their undergraduate courses!
Also you couldn't even type out equations properly.
It only became a problem when you said that $$W$$ was invariant. I was (and still am) surprised by this, because you didn't immediately see the implications. I'm not sure you actually know what you were writing.Yes i do know calculus. Besides, if you saw a mistake, why did you not simply point it out to begin with?
Because you claim that your college, which isn't a university, is doing material in your 1st year which is more advanced than these 'enigmatic' universities.And why do you keep talking about all these enigmatic universities? If I don't attend them, what have these places got to do with me?
I am very happy at the college I attend, and is well-renown around my place.
No, I don't think you know calculus. And perhaps Guest does as I do, gives you a chance for you to say "Opps, sorry I was wrong there. I meant to say...." and then you correct yourself. But you didn't. You haven't. Look at the PMs you and I exchanged over the last few days. I gave you a chance to correct your nonsense equations, you said "They are right". Then I ripped that apart.Yes i do know calculus. Besides, if you saw a mistake, why did you not simply point it out to begin with?
It only became a problem when you said that $$W$$ was invariant. I was (and still am) surprised by this, because you didn't immediately see the implications. I'm not sure you actually know what you were writing.
I'm not trying to getting at you Reiku. I don't particularly dishonest people, and if you are trying to make out to others on this forum that you know more than you do, and handing out mis-information in the process, you wont get a lot of sympathy from me.
Because you claim that your college, which isn't a university, is doing material in your 1st year which is more advanced than these 'enigmatic' universities.
Part III, the mathematics 4th year at Cambridge, is considered to be one of the toughest courses in the world. Top people, literally the top people from Europe make up half the year, the other half did their degree at Cambridge and carried on. One guy, from the US, had been doing 2 years of quantum field theory before going to Cambridge and already had secured a PhD place at Harvard. He was in the lowest 20% of the year for our exams! It's that tough. And yet you claim to be doing the material those students do, but you are 'rusty' at basic algebra, you admit to being not particularly mathematical and you haven't done any of the courses considered, by every university in the world, to be required to study general relativity, such as vector calculus, linear algebra, electromagnetism and special relativity, to name a few.
You're basically saying your college teaches people who are 3 or 4 years younger than the brightest people in Europe material said best people in Europe struggle with.
That's why I keep mentioning Cambridge. Your claiming your college teaches younger people harder material than the toughest mathematical course in possibly the entire world! And you don't think this is a little suspect? :shrug: Particularly considering that Cambridge doesn't consider a national diploma even enough to get into their 1st year!
Why isn't there talk of an educational establishment in Scotland which does what you claim? Why are you only getting a diploma when every other place which teaches such material gives their students degrees, masters and MPhils for that kind of stuff?
No, I don't think you know calculus. And perhaps Guest does as I do, gives you a chance for you to say "Opps, sorry I was wrong there. I meant to say...." and then you correct yourself. But you didn't. You haven't. Look at the PMs you and I exchanged over the last few days. I gave you a chance to correct your nonsense equations, you said "They are right". Then I ripped that apart.
Why are you incapable of learning?