hackenslash wrote:This looks fun, but I just want to clarify something concerning your terms before I dive in.

I see a few references to Einstein and spacetime, but there's something I'm not sure on. It looks like you're saying that social is energy, mass is space and c2 is time. Have I got that right?

Before I could answer your questions -- because I hadn't had a chance to reply yet, you went to on define the meaning of the variables to which you don't thoroughly understand. This is what you said above (in the 2nd sentence):

hackenslash wrote: but there's something I'm not sure on.

Then you went ahead to a detailed analysis of variables you don't understand, that you just asked about, before I could give you the information:

hackenslash wrote:

What is the value of C? Or have I got this wrong? In relativity, c is a constant, and plays the role of a coefficient telling us the relationship between energy and mass, the variables in Einstein's equation. In order to make sense of this, I think I need to see how the math works. If I'm wrong about C, then M must be the coefficient. I assume that can't be right, because that would mean that the math works in a completely different way, because if M is the constant, then the variable is squared, which would entirely cock up the relationships. It can't be a matter of commutation because of the exponent. I admit, I'm not the most competent mathematician in this corner of the web, my skill falling somewhere between somewhat lacking and entirely absent, but if you take it slow and walk me through the equations I can generally brute-force my way to some grasp.

And then you go ahead to define the variables you don't understand as you have just admitted:

hackenslash wrote:

Then you go on to say that energy is life itself, which is problematic in several ways.

This paragraph has cleared some things up for me (sorry, I'm reading as I go so I can keep it fresh; it can make for some hurdles along the way, but it's the easiest way for me to organise my thoughts, so progress is usually better despite the potential hurdles), namely a) that the constant is indeed C.

There does seem to be a bit of an issue with your text explanation in that last bit. You've given a natural language of Einstein's equation as energy=mass*speed of light and the added terms in brackets (time or C2). That can't be correct, because in Einstein's equation the speed of light was squared. Indeed, that's the first operation to be carried out on the equation by well-understood convention, even to a mathematical dilettante like me. Also, it looks for all the world as if the speed of light and C2 are the same. That's wrong in one or both of two ways:

1. You're missing an exponent on the former.

2. C is the square root of c and the entire mass-energy relationship fails to accord with reality.

The only thing that is transparent to me is that you give answers to questions you don't understand, while admitting so:

hackenslash wrote:

I see a few references to Einstein and spacetime, but there's something I'm not sure on. It looks like you're saying that social is energy, mass is space and c2 is time. Have I got that right?