Originally Posted by

**Geometrogenesis**
Hey look kiddo,

Yeah little fella, this is kinda fun trying to gain a position of dominance by calling each other childish names, I think it makes us seem real scientists.

I could be wrong, but I saw it as a sloppy notation. I thought the paper was meant to imply that Mc^2 was to vanish, afterall, when we talk about energy, we think of Mc^2 traditionally.

Wow that is pretty awesome you start your paper with a equation that you don't know if it is accurate? I would think long and hard about using a source that can't spell schwarzschild correctly and contains equations that you have assume are wrong.

Thus letting M go to zero, you could cancel Mc^2 from both sides, assuming the small 'm' is not effected. Hey, I could be wrong and this is not what he is implying... I will read the paper again later to find out.

You could be wrong or right, who knows? Rather a tenious way to write a disseration, right bub?

The problem is even with Mc^2 at zero there is still the problem of the negative energy which doesn't make sense.

Of course. Assuming the paper is absolutely right in its claim, this is just a bad conduct of understanding rather than an error on both our parts.

If the equation in your source is right then there is no metric left, if the equation should have had different masses then the equation makes no sense. So either way very early in your disseration there is a major problem, my young

Padawan .

Thanks for raising the subject.

Always glad to lend a hand.