Mass *has* gravity

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well that wasn't so hard now, was it! Could you have a look at the next bit now?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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/s^2?

 

W again is the invariant mass variable, and \(\gamma\) is a well-used variable in special relativity, usually found to denote the state of photons. K is the kinetic energy of the system, and the inegrals are talking about diffent steps describing a system with a mass, in this case, can be found at the very end of the equivalance; \(1/2m^{0}c^{2}\) -- usually, until this part is seen, we couldn't be sure if the equation was indeed describing a system for W.

 

I don't see why not, unless someone else can point out a reason why not too.

 

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.

 

I was wondering if someone could take a second and say if this reasoning so far is correct?

 

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.

 

This is a shame - I was hoping you'd spot your mistake. If \(W\) is constant, then \(dW\) is zero. Do you know calculus?

 

Yes i do know calculus. Besides, if you saw a mistake, why did you not simply point it out to begin with?

 

I never claimed any of the sort alphanumeric. I told you something so very different.

And so what if a can't type an equation properly most of the time. I've already admitted to making typo's in calculations. Not the end of the world.

 

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.

 

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?

 

But i do know a lot. And the equation is not wrong. Invariant mass is just the technical term for mass. It's a fancy word that has mistaken you.

Now, please don't take the way of alphanumeric. I have to deal enough of his tiresome 'paranoia's.'

He tends to floute about calling people liars, because the word sounds good. I just had to be on this site for two seconds, and he's already calling other people liars, namely BillyT.

 

Why are you trying to lie to everyone? I said, my teacher informs us of different area's of physics which involves particular math. It actually helps us understand how much in use a particular mass is.

Never have i said to you, that the work i was doing was more advanced than cambridge. This is a lie you have planted in your dense skull.