# A new theory that I have been working on. (Special Relativity Based)

## Recommended Posts

Basically, what I am getting from this, is that I am wreckless with numbers and firm with ideas.

I'll admit my mathematics are completely off base.

So perhaps not as "firm" with the ideas as you thought before? It would be difficult to have a firm grasp of anything without knowing the basics well. Like assuming you could think outside the box without knowing what's inside.

• Replies 81
• Created

#### Posted Images

##### Share on other sites

The number that this equation spits out fits on an inverse square, according to this knowledge

But you don't even have a power of 2 in your "equation" so it i not an inverse square. So I assume what you really mean is:

$P \propto \frac 1 {{energy}^2}$

But, of course, it is impossible to calculate P from this because it is not an equation. So what you really need is:

$P = \frac k {{energy}^2}$

Where k is some (unknown) constant of proportionality.

However, we know from experiments that such an equation is wrong. In the vicinity of a non-rotating massive spherically symmetric object (e.g. the Earth) time dilation is described by:

$t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}}$

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

And this is confirmed by experiment, including GPS satellites.

##### Share on other sites

That's not thew issue. You claimed that satellites of different mass must travel in different orbits, and thus at different speeds (but ending with the same KE) which is utter nonsense.

##### Share on other sites

Basically, what I am getting from this, is that I am wreckless with numbers and firm with ideas.

I need to be slower with this, and check my shit twice before I throw numbers.

If you use Wolfram Alpha you can type very high-level calculations. For example, if you want to calculate the energy equivalent of the mass of the Earth, just type "mass of earth * c^2":

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+earth+*+c%5E2

This will give you 5.367544 x 1041 J

And note that if you ask for the answer in watts ("mass of earth * c^2 in watts") it will tell you that you can't do that ("the results are not compatible").

##### Share on other sites

Basically, what I am getting from this, is that I am wreckless with numbers and firm with ideas.

Unfortunately, while you are reckless with numbers, your numbers are nothing but wrecks that have happened, are in the process of happening, or are about to happen. This leads the reader to believe that you don't know what you are talking about.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Ok - this thread has run its course. It is abundantly clear that the OP has scant understanding of the basics of mathematics, physics, and cosmology - we do not provide this space for people to blog their latest fantastical pipe dream. The speculations forum exists to allow members to test their idea - but these tests necessarily rely on compatibility with current theory, mathematical consistency, and the possibility of empirical evidence and comparison to the data; this speculation does not even allow the possibility of such testing.

This thread falls well below the standards required for the Speculations Forum and is now locked. The OP does not have permission to reopen a new thread on the same topic.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×