Endercreeper01

I agree That constant would be the sphere constant

I agree. What are some more errors?

Well actually, yes, but where did I say that I=-I?

Well I know that now, but -11/2 equals i because its the same as doing I1/2 root(-1*-1*-1) is root(-13), not (root(-1))3

-a2 isn't a complex quantity, and neither is 1/2 or 2. And how do you know if they mean that or not?

Actually it wouldn't be and it would just be for CD0. It's because the lift coefficient would not be Lcos(θavg ), where L is the lift coefficient for a 2D plate, and that's because you also have to consider the effects from the airfoils and angle of attack. Accoring to my new theory for coeficient of lift (WIP), one term in the equation would be Dcos(θavg ), but except the x axis would now be at the bottom instead of perpendicular to the velocity.

It would have to, because z2/2 is also (z2)1/2, and (za)b=zab. Because 2/2=1, then z2/2=z1=z. That is also (z2)1/2, so therefore it is. Sources: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentLaws.html http://math2.org/math/algebra/exponents.htm http://tobybartels.name/MATH-0950/2007s/monomials/ http://www.math.hmc.edu/calculus/tutorials/reviewtriglogexp/

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentLaws.html says that x doesn't have to be an integer, but it has to be a real number. 1/2 and 2 are real numbers I know that, but what about my process of finding my equation? What would be wrong there? To back up your statement then you would need to Why not?

By sq.root(a2), I meant a2/2, which equals (a1/2)2 and (a2)1/2. Because 2/2=1, and (ab)c=abc, then you are raising it to the power of 2/2, or 1, which equals a.

Why do you think I am false? You can't just say that I am asserting something false. You have to tell me why, just like others did.

I'm asking what you think about something When you take the square root of a negative, you have to decide on either -i or i to be the imaginary unit, and so there is no ambiguity. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipalSquareRoot.html

Yes you can. You raise (a^2/i^2=a^2/-1=-a^2) to the power of 1/2.

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant (-a2)1/2. if a/i=-ai, then that means i/i=1, and you are just multiplying a/i by one (accoding to a/i=-ai), and that gives you a/i.

If you raise to the 1/2 power, would it still be ambiguous? See bottom of 1st post All I am doing is just showing you something and asking what you think.

Here is proof that a+bi=-a+bi: Using the distributive proprty, we can write a+bi as i(a/i+b). a/i is also equal to ai, so then it becomes i(ai+b). That equals ai2+bi, and i2=-1, so therefore it makes -a+bi. Equation form of proof: a+bi=i(a/i+b)=i(ai+b)=ai2+bi=-a+bi Proof that a/i=ai: Because i2=-1, we can write a/i as a/-11/2. a is also sq.root(a2), or a2/2, so it is also a2/2/-11/2. Since a1/2/b1/2=(a/b)1/2, we can write this as (a2/-1)1/2, which is also equal to -a2/2. -a2/2 =a2/2i, or just ai. What do you guys think?

Physics is math heavy, so I wouldn't do physics if you are not good at math.

According to the article:

What other arguments do you have?

What about when you have a path that is not circular? 1. By combining them I meant combining the effects from gravity and velocity 2. The link you showed does not have the same equations as of what you posted 3. According to the expirment, Toffoto's approach seems logical, but according to the expirment, it is not true. But why do they add and not multiply?

You first.

Show me a source that shows the swartzchild time dilation solution with both effects

I gave you the sources that I got m equation from, so therefore general relativity time dilation does not include both. Show me an equation and a source for a general relativity equation that includes both.

Yes, but in the equations, we use Rs/r and v2/c2

Then why is it that in the equations for time dilation, we use v2/c2 instead of v2/2c2