Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 Watts is Joules per second NOT Joules per metre (BTW: if you continue to use jm for Joules per metre - which in itself if wrong - I will assume you are trolling and/or not caring about communication with the members "0.9993281288633913P/1 ∝ (0.0006718379510901jm=0.0000000331855186jm)/V" This equation features all new numbers and is mathematically incorrect - how can it follow? That Joule of energy travels a distance in that 1 second. Energy must radiate, says thermodynamics. But Watts is just fine. 0.9993281288633913P/1 ∝ (0.0006718379510901w=0.0000000331855186w)/V The number at P is the time dilation in the volume. "A second of time is a measurement of time, but our measurements do not relate to how it functions." So this ratio of P, does not have a designated measurement yet, other than our concept of the passing of time. So that ratio on the inverse square only makese sense when you know what a second is, (our exact measurement of a second) and what the ratio of P is. You multiply the result of P by 2, and you can see how many seconds per seconds time dilation an area is experiencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 No - still not explained. Where do the numbers come from? How do you calculate the time dilation in a volume? Correct the maths so that it uses well known symbols - I want the other members to be able to stick it into a calculator and get same answer as you have got; at present that is impossible. Please understand this is the basis of science - repeatability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) No - still not explained. Where do the numbers come from? How do you calculated the time dilation in a volume? By understanding that the less matter and energy there is in a volume, the faster time moves. (General Relativity says this is the case. We know all of these facts) This is a calculation of known variables, with Time and Space noted as separate in the equation, not the same thing, as Einstein believed. This is Relativity explained when you separate Time from Space in math. Edited April 14, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Well show the calculation, the known variables (and their source), and the answer. Rather than posting rubbish - which is what you are presently doing. GR is considerably more complex than this - so either rehearse the equations of GR and show how they tie in or provide your own equations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 Well show the calculation, the known variables (and their source), and the answer. Rather than posting rubbish - which is what you are presently doing. GR is considerably more complex than this - so either rehearse the equations of GR and show how they tie in or provide your own equations. An inverse square is exactly what this ties to. It is not more complex than that, I am saying that General and Special relativity are presented as extremely complex, because space and time are thought to be the same thing in those calculations. This calculation reduces the idea of gravity to energy, mass to energy, and energy to energy (because all of these things can literally be translated to exactly that), and comparing all of their motions, known energy's, and masses (which we already know from the standard model of physics) to deduce the amount of time experienced. This equation links the inverse square of gravity to the inverse square of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 OK - You're trolling or cannot read English. Show the calculation, the known variables (and their source), and the answer. 0.9993281288633913P/1 ∝ (0.0006718379510901w=0.0000000331855186w)/V You have three unexplained numbers lets call them j, k, m jP/1 ∝ (k)= m /V There is an equation k=m/V and a proportionality jP ∝ k WHY! Give us a clue. At present this is vegan science - all word salad and no meat! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 *reserving this, its not gonna be small...* Might take me a bit to do the math, and graph it. But i'll prove it with meat. Veganism is a lie. We are omnivores. This shit is not an alternative fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 At present it seems that this shit is shit - not even an alternative fact. So get with the programme and move in small steps from known science to your new ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 So the equation would actually look like this. 0.9993281288633913P/1 ∝ (0.0006718379510901jm=0.0000000331855186jm)/V The volume is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter how big or small the volume is, this is the absolute minimum energy it can have. (Edit: Sorry for the slowness, I am still trying to translate the idea in words, let alone numbers. But this is a real, honest to god number). Where does 0.9993281288633913 come from? Why is V in the equation if volume is irrelevant? Why are you using P/1 whenI have already explained what "inversely proportional" means? You have mentioned "inverse square" but there are no powers of 2 in your equation? What does it mean to have an "=" on the RHS? That makes no mathematical sense. Do you understand basic algebra and dimensional analysis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) Where does 0.9993281288633913 come from? Why is V in the equation if volume is irrelevant? Why are you using P/1 whenI have already explained what "inversely proportional" means? You have mentioned "inverse square" but there are no powers of 2 in your equation? What does it mean to have an "=" on the RHS? That makes no mathematical sense. Do you understand basic algebra and dimensional analysis? The forumula isn't written correctly then, lemme fix that, uno momento. V is still relevant because space must be represented. =RHS? (Genuinely asking, no idea what that short hand is) Yes, just still refining the equation to represent the idea better. Wroking for the rest of the weekend on this. Is this more accurate? That would desccribe time passing in a sphere. (I goofed, the set of parenths is meant to cover the whole sphere calculation (¾πr3)) I guess it could also V be expressed as P^2∝(1/E=mc^2) V Or wouldit be represented this way ? (1/E=mc^2)∝P^2 V Edited April 14, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 RHS is Right hand side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 RHS is Right hand side Whelp. I just gave up on living. Lol, jk, back to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Still waiting... Where does 0.9993281288633913 come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 Still waiting... Well, in the rearrangement of the equation, 0.9993281288633913 would become 0.9986567091376068. This comes from General Relativity's knowledge that when you are moving faster or slower, you have more or less mass, and energy, and special relativities attempt to track that movement. This measurement is what this equation outputs to graph on the inverse square at the minimum and maximum of that square. We can do so becuase we know the minimum from the Higgs and Mass Gap, and when their energy over time is calculated together you get a minimum EnergyMass measurement, convert that with my equation, stick it on the graph, knowing that it is inverse, you just put the inverse on the other side of the square. This number is the "slider" for the fast forward button on time. Time dilation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Well, in the rearrangement of the equation, 0.9993281288633913 would become 0.9986567091376068. This comes from General Relativity's knowledge that when you are moving faster or slower, you have more or less mass, and energy, and special relativities attempt to track that movement. . Please show us how you calculate this number with your equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 Please show us how you calculate this number with your equation. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C2TjYBAl4ubyFMvbo2Uk8b3Mdo-watLuzaHzypu5AWM/edit# Just finished working that out, Page 2 through 4 fit your question with accuracy. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Sorry, I can't access that. Please present it here. Thank you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 Sorry, I can't access that. Please present it here. Thank you. Equation: Broken down P2∝1/(E=mc2) V P = The ratio of time dilation experienced in the measured volume. Represented by a decimal (referred to as a ratio in MassTime) when calculated. (e.g. 0.123, but never over .999 and never below .0001) V = Volume of space. This designates how big the volume of space is, as well as where the volume of space is. (e.g. 150m3 X.1 Y.2 Z.3) E = E=mc2. This defines what is in the volume, and how it is behaving. The energy that the object is experiencing, consuming, and emitting. This also includes the object's mass and what that mass is. These inputs can be taken from General Relativity. We know that energy and mass are interchangeable energetically, so E=mc2 represents all of the information within the measured volume. ∝ = Inversely proportional to. 1 = The denominator for the inverse square, representative of 1 unit of time per EnergyMass in a volume. 1 is Time, this is so because time moves forward. What All of This Means The ratio of time dilation in a single designated volume of space can be derived by comparing the EnergyMass in the designated volume on an inverse square, equivalent to the inverse square of gravity, compared to the minimum known possible energy and mass in a volume. This equation, when implemented in the place of General and Special relativity, will give a more accurate result compared to the current outputs of relativity as it is currently being used in physics. MassTime: Time Dilation Defined The maximum ratio of time dilation that it is possible to experience is calculated below. It is known now, thanks to countless hours of research by hundreds of thousands of people what the theoretical energy of the Higgs field is, as well as the weight of a ground state of a hydrogen atom. These numbers are large and cumbersome, so thanks to mathematics, and E=mc2, we have the measurements handy in Joules per meter. The numbers are so. Energy in Joules per Meter (Joules converted to Watts are Joules per Second, or Energy over Time through a Volume) Higgs energy : 0.0006718379510901w Hydrogen Atom at Ground State : 0.0000000331855186w (This number can be represented by any measurement of energy, watts is preferred.) When the energy of both the Higgs, and Hydrogen Atoms ground state are added together to form the E portion of the equation, you come up with this number. (This number can be represented by any measurement of energy, watts is preferred.) 0.0006718711366087w This number is the minimum possible EnergyMass in any volume of space in the MassTime model given as a ratio. The number below, represents the inverse of that of EnergyMass per volume, also as a ratio. Given the information above in the MassTime model this number represents the point at which the event horizon of a black hole begins. 0.9993281288633913 However, when you calculate for the lowest energy possible in any volume, and graph that on an inverse square, you can use that number to calculate the maximum frequency of time as I have done so below. 0.99932812886339132∝1/(0.0006718379510901w=0.0000000331855186w) V The output of this would be 0.9986567091376068, representing the maximum possible time passed in any given volume, as being at the most that it can possibly be, according to the lowest. **Our measurements do not relate to how time functions.** Take this number, multiply it by 2, then give it an arbitrary category of measurement. Expresion: 0.99865670913760682∝1/(125 gev=Δc2) V Example 1 : 0.9986567091376068x2=1.99731 Timescale: Minutes Minutes passed : 1.99731 Minutes measured : 1 Example 2: 0.9986567091376068x2=1.99731 Timescale: Seconds Seconds passed : 1.99731 Seconds measured : 1 Example 3: 0.9986567091376068x2=1.99731 Timescale: Billions of Years Billions of years passed : 1.99731 Billions of years measured : 1 So any spot we measure in space will read the same on the left hand side of the equation, it is our measurement usage that is the limitation of accuracy. This equation shows that for every 1 second passing, the lowest EnergyMass volume being measured experiences 1.9973134182752136 units of measured time. With this in mind, that means that if we measured the same way at the event horizon of a black hole, for every 1 second passing, the event horizon at the very edge of a black hole would experience 0.0013437422732174 units of measured time. These are the measured Laking Constants on the inverse square. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 Sigh. I didn't want you to just repeat everything you have said before. I just want you to answer one simple question: Where does 0.9993281288633913 come from? Please show, concisely, how you calculate that number. Just a few lines showing the calculation please. And after that you can consider these: Why is V in the equation if volume is irrelevant? Why are you using P/1 when I have already explained what "inversely proportional" means? You have mentioned "inverse square" but there are no powers of 2 in your equation? What does it mean to have an "=" on the RHS? That makes no mathematical sense. Do you understand basic algebra and dimensional analysis? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Sriman Dutta Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 A big question: While writing the equations, how do you get '=' in the denominator ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 16, 2017 Author Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) A big question: While writing the equations, how do you get '=' in the denominator ? P ∝ V V E+Mc2 Yeah, so, Here's an update. With the assistance of you alls wonderfuls pointing out my errors, I have it actually correct now. These are all real numbers, really referenced, and mathed out. Here! You take the Energy and the Mass(Converted to energy for mathematical simplicity) and designate it's volume. The earth is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, and produces 44,000,000,000,000w of energy. You conviert the KG to W with E=mc2 and boom, two energy measurements. That is the amount of energy, in volume V (lets say, 1m3) So, you put that number (44421698952483) in the place of P Then devide 1 by P, and you get the ratio of time dilation. The minimum possible EnergyMass is at the higgs field, experiencing 1448 time dilation. The maximum possible EnergyMass is at the event horizon of a black hole, at 0.0000000114 time dilation You take the time dilation output (in earths case, it is 0.00000187189760) Now, just mulitplying it raw by a second doesn't mean diddly, because what the hell is a second between one place and another? SO! Here is the Satellite thingy mapped out. http://www.astronautix.com/g/gpsblock2r.html : American navigation satellite. AKA: AS 4000; Global Positioning System; Navstar. Status: Operational 1997. First Launch: 1997-01-17. Last Launch: 2009-08-17. Number: 21 . 19927 Gross mass: 2,032 kg Height: 1.91 m Span: 11.40 m http://gpsinformation.net/main/gpspower.htm : In the frequency allocation filing the L1 C/A power is listed as 25.6 Watts. The Antenna gain is listed at 13 dBi. Thus, based on the frequency allocation filing, the power would be about 500 Watts (27 dBW). We take the information above, (2032kg,500w, 120 watts of energy added from the sun) 20547 Watts when converted Convert it all with some handy dandy equations (0.03279285053334) That is the amount of time dilation the satellite experiences in orbit. On the ground, in addition to the weight of the satellite, its own power, and the energy of space around it, we are taking in to account the atmosphere, soil, structure, rocket fuel, and other weights in the same volume measurement. So, lets just add a bit of dirt, 1200kg sound good? It's just a bit of rocks, and steel around the clock on the ground. (Like from inside a building) Turns out to be 32315 watts. Turns out to be 0.02085083397519 Sattelite in orbit 0.03279285053334 Sattelite on earth 0.02085083397519 If you will recall, from the very first page before I even got the equation correct, I predicted the time dilation between .011 and .012 when measured with MassTime, as predicted by the .0000000004 microsecond per day difference that is calculated for currently. This shows that the masstime model predicts the satellite to move .012 seconds faster per relative second than the clock on the ground per year. P ∝ V V E+Mc2 Shorthand:(E)∝(P) 0.0010183000 The time dilation a Human experiences 1488 the time dilation in a massless void of space 0.0000000000003713 time dilation on the surface of Jupiter 0.0000000114 time dilation at an event horizon I just proved that this model of the universe works, becuase this theory, regardless of how it is expressed, scales. Intergalactic Space Nebulas Nuetron Stars Exoplanets Skyscrapers Trains GPS Sattelites TV show Hosts General Relativity And your cereal. With this in mind, Here is the maximum frequency of time, right before your faces. P ∝ V V (125gev+Δc2) Maybe a Quark or Two. P.S. The above post was calculated on the fly while posting, the edit was because the formatting is from google docs. Edited April 16, 2017 by Silas_L -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 You still have NOT shown how you get your results. Let's take an example.... You take the Energy and the Mass(Converted to energy for mathematical simplicity) and designate it's volume.The earth is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, and produces 44,000,000,000,000w of energy.You conviert the KG to W with E=mc2 and boom, two energy measurements.That is the amount of energy, in volume V (lets say, 1m3)So, you put that number (44421698952483) in the place of PThen devide 1 by P, and you get the ratio of time dilation. 1. Where does "44,000,000,000,000w of energy" come from?2. Converting mass to energy with E=mc^{2} gives you joules not watts. How did you get watts?3. You have not shown what result you get when you convert the mass to energy.So, if we take your 5.972 x 10^{24} kg and multiply by c^{2} we get 5.367 x 10^{41} joules. That is 5367 followed by 38 zeroes. Therefore your 44 trillion watts is irrelevant.4. Where does the number "44421698952483" come from? How did you calculate that? We take the information above, (2032kg,500w, 120 watts of energy added from the sun)20547 Watts when convertedConvert it all with some handy dandy equations (0.03279285053334) 5. How exactly do you get 20547 watts? For comparison, if I multiply 2032 kg by c^{2}, I get 1.862 x 10^{20} joules. This is (a) much bigger than your number and (b) joules not watts. Here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2032+kg+*+c%5E2 6. How do you calculate "0.03279285053334" ? Until you are willing / able to answer these questions, there is little point continuing. P ∝ V V E+Mc2 In other words, [latex]P \propto \frac 1 {E + Mc^2}[/latex]. You still have the problem that because this just says "proportional to" it is not possible to calculate a value of P. (Which may explain why you have just invented the numbers rather than calculating them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Sensei Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) Where are all your figures coming from? The ground state of Hydrogen has an energy of 13.6eV. Your figure is huge compared to that - and it is units which are not dimensionally equivalent to energy (not dimensionally equivalent to anything I can think of). Energy should be in Joules - for very tiny energies we use eV (and associated mass eV/c^2). The mass of a hydrogen atom is closer to your figure - but even so not correct from my memory. Please give sources before you move on. Oi, snap! Thanks, I wasn't paying attention to the conversion last night. The numbers are corrected now. So the 13.6eV number is in energy, and energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. The weight in a mass measurement is irrelevant because of this. 13.6 eV is energy that's missing.. Electric neutral Hydrogen (proton and electron bound together) has smaller mass-energy than free proton and free electron. Hydrogen release 13.6 eV, as photons, in discharge tube filled by Hydrogen gas, creating spectral lines.. Don't you know how to calculate these lines? That's XIX century knowledge.. Edited April 16, 2017 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 17, 2017 Author Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) 13.6 eV is energy that's missing.. Electric neutral Hydrogen (proton and electron bound together) has smaller mass-energy than free proton and free electron. Hydrogen release 13.6 eV, as photons, in discharge tube filled by Hydrogen gas, creating spectral lines.. Don't you know how to calculate these lines? That's XIX century knowledge.. Hydrogen_Spectra.jpg Thanks a bunch, this actually was very informative, and turns out to be something completely different, but within my calculations. Here is an update. The ratio of time can be compared with this information, To use the satellite example and clarify the output usage. When we take the the formula P/V ∝ V/(E=mc2) and fill in the slots, with the known information, we get this. P/12m3 ∝ 12m3/(620w+2,032 kg). The 12m3 comes from the 3 dimensional measurement of the object, or “Where it is” and “How much volume is there to account for that that mass is consuming”. So some arbitrary XYZ coordinate gets tacked on to the volume, because you have to describe where in space. Not just “in space”. The 620w comes from two measurements. The energy that is present in the volume, and the energy from outside sources added to the volume (sunlight, solar wind, other forces). 500 watts of raw power on board the craft. This does not include the mass of the craft though. This is where the 2,032kg comes in. We can convert kg to joules, and we can also convert those joules to watts. We are talking about the EnergyMass. We know mathematically, that matter and energy can be represented by the same measurements. That is E=Mc2. But to account for all the mass and energy in the volume, and convert it to a wattage measurement (Joules over seconds, we are measuring time passage) it enables us to compare that energy with the lowest possible energy per space (This is recalculated, The Mass Gap is another part of this to explain later. The Fastest possible time is expressed like so. P/12m3 ∝ 12m3/(125gev+0kg) = 0.0006718379510901w Slightly lower than before, as it only had 0.000000033w added from the ground state atom. This gives us 0.0006718379510901/1. When you divide (the passage of a unit of time) 1 by this number you get this. 1488.4541702019. That is the ratio of time in a void of space, completely devoid of mass, and only displaying quantum vibrations, causing the 125gev. With that in mind, we know from black holes that there is an upper limit of EnergyMass, which is inverse to the higgs field in EnergyMass. We can assume that is just above 0, because it would have an inverse effect on time (Like we know it does). When the Satellites are compared, you get two numbers, (calculated like explained above) Sattelite in orbit 0.03279285053334 Sattelite on earth 0.02085083397519 This result happens describes the time dilation between the two, down to an incredibly long decimal point. We can convert that extremely small decimal point to any amount of time, and it doesn’t matter, because it’s time. The result above says that a Sattelite in orbit experiences 0.032 units of time per year, and the Sattelite on earth experiences 0.020 units of time per year. Seconds per year 31557600 (but, these are our years, not time's years, time doesn’t care about us, we are small). Okay, seconds… for what? PER TIME! So we take the seconds per year measurement, 31557600 (We know this) and add the ratio on the end as a decimal relative from a smaller unit of time, to a larger unit of time. The more accurate the unit of measurements are, the more accurate the equation is. So using Picoseconds to Microseconds would yeild an AMAZINGLY accurate result. This is comparing seconds to years. So basically, we take this seconds per year measurement, and we literally add the time dilation to it. 31557600.03279 31557600.02085 The satellite is experiencing .012 seconds per year faster in orbit. Anything else can be like so. Micro seconds per seconds, seconds per minutes, minutes per hours, hours per days, days per weeks, weeks per years, years per millenia, you get the drill. You want seconds per millenium next? Or picoseconds per nanoseconds? Edited April 17, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 STOP posting new stuff and answer some questions! P/12m3 ∝ 12m3/(125gev+0kg) = 0.0006718379510901w How do you calculate this result? Please show how you calculate "0.0006718379510901w" from this formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts