Thread: Defining c = i/E(when -1 = m)

I have started this thread now to divine whether the process of critical analysis is going to be respected at this forum. I intend to return to the subject I brought here to put befor KJW(not you navel gazers who have previously misdirected my analysis). If this thread is given respect I will continue to resolve the equation I haver provided.

Thank you for your facility

c = i/E(when -1 = m)

OK. Here is some respectful critical analysis (the same questions I would ask anyone):

What is c in this equation?
What is E in this equation?
What is m in this equation?
What is i in this equation?

How did you derive this relationship?
What is the physical meaning of this equation?

Why does m = -1?

Originally Posted by Strange

c = i/E(when -1 = m)

OK. Here is some respectful critical analysis (the same questions I would ask anyone):

What is c in this equation?
What is E in this equation?
What is m in this equation?
What is i in this equation?

How did you derive this relationship?
What is the physical meaning of this equation?

Why does m = -1?

this will require substantial reference to E =mc^2 and a quantity of work. I appreciate the very clear definitives you have provided and will attend to all you have supplied. Genuinely grateful. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Strange

c = i/E(when -1 = m)

Why does m = -1?

the inclusion of i within the equation is the easiest way to make it neat. The value of -1 is m, not the other way around(there is kinda a little more in this statement than immediately obvious)

"Consider the engineering challenge of maintaining perfect sphericity of torque upon the contraction or expansion of a perfectly spherical mass. What is the compressional torque value and what is the expansional torque value?"


Two equations I have been seeking for a substantial time are the torque covariant and the torque co-efficient between terminal velocity and the rate of expansion of space. The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.
<
<
<
<
<
I have re-supplied this here as patient contemplation of the exact word use within this passage provides clarification of the parameters I am describing. Until the qualification of the equation is supplied, questions of torsion are pre-emptive.

Originally Posted by Postpocalypse

the inclusion of i within the equation is the easiest way to make it neat.

You need more than "neat" as a reason for constructing an equation.

The value of -1 is m, not the other way around

You do realise that equality (=) is transitive and commutative?

So saying -1 = m is exactly the same as saying m = -1.

Why is m = -1? And what does m represent?

(there is kinda a little more in this statement than immediately obvious)

No, it is obviously the same meaningless ignorant crap you always post.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Postpocalypse

the inclusion of i within the equation is the easiest way to make it neat.

You need more than "neat" as a reason for constructing an equation.

The value of -1 is m, not the other way around

You do realise that equality (=) is transitive and commutative?

So saying -1 = m is exactly the same as saying m = -1.

Why is m = -1? And what does m represent?

(there is kinda a little more in this statement than immediately obvious)

No, it is obviously the same meaningless ignorant crap you always post.

I see you have not applied patience to the question. I have promised to supply resolution. Please refrain from further misdirecting this analysis. Thank you.

You put this in mathematics after I moved your other thread out of there. I don't appreciate that This is going to earn you a few days off.