As I said. Don't care, at all. Enjoy the HUGE sum of $10k you managed to scam out of the British. You fucking loser.
>4 images of einstein in the catalogstop shilling
I prefer [eqn] E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 [/eqn] personally.
>>16975354How long did it take him to realise that? 25 years? And he is supposed to be smart.
>>16975451LMAO, imagine not nomalizing c to 1.
>>16975488>loss of information is good
But there's already a huge amount of energy in mass. Last night I had a warp tunnel appear near me when someone in the world was experimenting with energy fusion. I'm connected to people through the world's mass; it had a huge reverse pull towards the center before collapsing. I could work out; there isn't enough mass inertia to sustain fusion on Earth. One of the scientists on the other end then said that was the end of the experiment, and we can't get there, and other energy supplies will be our end.
>>16975497no loss of infoit's comparable to solving an equation using x instead of inserting its numerical value all over the place
>>16975520>c is numerical valueLay off physics, it's dangerous to you.If you do c=1, it can be literally anywhere because it makes it neutral with respect to multiplication.You lose information.
>>16975488It would still be:E^2 = m^4 + p^2; not m^2
>>16975529c = 1 causes v^2/c^2 to not be dimensionless anymore. Lorentz factor suddenly has a dimension of velocity squared.
>>16975522While it's was important for Maxwell and his light theory, generally it's just a constant
>>16975451This is not the way
>>16975531>t. doesn't use beta
>>16975606No its just measured constantly when measuring the two way speed. Because of lenght and time dialation. In reality it depends on the relativ movement throught the aether.
