Strange

It appears to be wrong. c doesn't change for any observer. Perhaps I have misunderstood your point. What is c = nt? (what is n? what is t?) Where did you get that from?

It is undefined at c. Not surprisingly. That doesn't make SR wrong.

I thought you had accepted my explanation. But never mind. But other people have posted posted information about experiments that claim to be able to answer the question. But feel free to ignore that as well. I don't think this is a scientific question. It is a philosophical one. I don't think philosophy does peer review (I might be wrong). Yeah, right. Or maybe people don't really care. Or they are pissed off that you have ignored the many helpful replies you have received, and continue to throw insults around. I dunno, man.

It is just a matter of measurement accuracy. Which is always limited. It has nothing to do with the value of pi, though. As someone else said, it is equally true of the value 2.0000....

And they may soon be using solar sails.

Well when you say meaningless things like “In 3D direction is always a scalar or magnitude quantity” ... Scalar means there is no direction associated with a value. Direction is represented in the same way in 2d and 3D.

That makes no sense. There are Euclidean models of space-time. They only work locally, where the curvature can be assumed to be zero. They do not work on cosmological scales (where the curvature cannot be ignored). I would suggest you take some time to study differential geometry. As I gather you are a genius it should only take two or three years of full time study to get to grips with the basics.

Because the density is too low. It is only because the galaxy is large that there is enough dark matter to have an effect. I have not heard that before. Do you have a reference?

Not that work on cosmological scales. Do you know that your concerns about the shortcomings of Euclidean geometry are not addressed by the more general approach of differential geometry?

So. It still seems that the "identity" only holds for a subset of values of those. (So it isn't an identity.) How do you define which values the equation is valid for?

You will see the result of those colours being mixed together. Here is a page with lots of spectra: http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/ If you look at sodium, you can see a bright pair of emissions lines in the yellow. So we see yellow. In the case of xenon, there are lines throughout the spectrum and we see weight light from a xenon lamp.

Have you asked at your local library what the correct classification would be for the book?

Perhaps the fact that it isn't an identity shows that it doesn't reveal anything that is being ignored in Euclidean geometry. You seem convinced that your idea has some value, will allows us to do things in Euclidean geometry that were not possible before. But you have provided no evidence or other rationale to support this. Until you do that, I doubt anyone is going to accept that assertion. Most space-time models are non-Euclidean. You have an even bigger challenge if you want to show that your equation will contribute to the field of differential geometry (because that is a massively complex area of mathematics). Good luck.

Is this a collaborative fiction project? Or ... ?

No. Simultaneity is part of relativity, which is a classical theory. So I'm not sure why this is in quantum theory. Do you mean something different by simultaneity?

I have no idea. But firing microwaves at the brain sounds like a Bad Idea.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html so that’s all the elementary particles (including quarks, neutrinos and photons) Different theory. And there is no evidence strings exist.

All elementary particles are point like. And they all have (intrinsic) spin.

They would be better silvered, rather than white.

[/math] I blame Microsoft for people getting their slashes confused!

There is an interactive Latex editor that can help with getting the code right before copying it here: http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

Energy

Really? The original paper: http://www.astro.puc.cl/~rparra/tools/PAPERS/e_mc2.pdf And for a bit of history: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/ Some more discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence Why does that require an ether? It just requires that light is a wave phenomenon. There is no evidence for ether. (And never has been, it was just an assumption.) There is no need for ether. An ether would have impossible physical properties.

Interesting. Thank you.

Mass and energy are equivalent (related by e=mc2). So in the stress-energy tensor that defines the gravitational effect of a system the mass is represented as the equivalent energy. There are other terms (e.g. pressure, momentum, sheer stress, etc) that also contribute. There is no ether. Although, before you bring it up (as many anti-relativity cranks do) he did once use the word "ether" to refer to space-time.