What If We Give Some New Descriptions?

[inverse]

I would write a new paper and would make some new descriptions in it for engineering.

I will rewrite some descriptions and theorems from undergraduate courses and make new descriptions 

 

will this be nonsense?

 

 

 

[exchemist]

I would write a new paper and would make some new descriptions in it for engineering.

I will rewrite some descriptions and theorems from undergraduate courses and make new descriptions 

 

will this be nonsense?

Judging by your footer message, very likely, I should think.

[inverse]

Judging by your footer message, very likely, I should think.

 

I remember you had asked it in the past too.

 

Well,I have some projects for this. 

 

but as a summary,I would say that the equation will have a new form in the different areas. 

but not regular areas (regular mean :ordinary)

 

my project claims that in different subspaces (or here math -spaces) some equations will have different  forms.

 

Just consder a subregion  of [math] R^{3} [/math] and consider please that region is closed region. (more generally the closed subspace of [math] R^n [/math]

 

I do not think that everything would be same like elsewhere. but of course not at everywhere.

Edited September 9, 2018 by inverse

[Vmedvil2]

I remember you had asked it in the past too.

 

Well,I have some projects for this. 

 

but as a summary,I would say that the equation will have a new form in the different areas. 

but not regular areas (regular mean :ordinary)

 

my project claims that in different subspaces (or here math -spaces) some equations will have different  forms.

 

Just consder a subregion  of [math] R^{3} [/math] and consider please that region is closed region. (more generally the closed subspace of [math] R^n [/math]

 

I do not think that everything would be same like elsewhere. but of course not at everywhere.

 

What is it with people and thinking the Strong Nuclear Force's collapse into the Weak Nuclear Force doesn't follow E=MC² , Do you people realize how silly this is to say E=MC² is false given that Nuclear Fusion and Fission Reactors and Bombs work and have been in operation for 50 years which have always followed this equation or a form of it? It is probably one of the most experimentally tested things in physics, Fission Reactors test it constantly even while I type this.

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[inverse]

What is it with people and thinking the Strong Nuclear Force's collapse into the Weak Nuclear Force doesn't follow E=MC² , Do you people realize how silly this is to say E=MC² is false given that Nuclear Fusion and Fission Reactors and Bombs work and have been in operation for 50 years which have always followed this equation or a form of it? It is probably one of the most experimentally tested things in physics, Fission Reactors test it constantly even while I type this.

 

 

 

I think we are remarking something more different than yours.

we are not psycist but  presumably you will be able to have some clues or details if you consider this question

 

does light have mass ? OR 

 

is everything complete in the universe? (we are neglecting something in the implementations stage)

Edited December 24, 2018 by inverse

[GAHD]

does light have mass ?

That's a funny thing. It has kinetic energy, which SEEMS to be a form of mass-energy with the right number mixing...