I discovered a working formula structure of Relativity that works in a spreadsheet, complete with gravity, would like people to look at it

[seasnake]

I'm presently trying to get my work looked at by anyone that can hopefully get my work examined in an academic community. My work which I've worked upon for around a decade (often leading me to toss everything time and time again) places the classical energy formulas of Relativity into diagram form which then gives a functional formula of gravity and all of which sums up and balances out perfectly in spreadsheet form. The work is copyright protecteded through being file at the U.S. Library of Congress but has not otherwise been published.

 

On the second tab of my spreadsheet I have found two equations that balance out perfectly but I can't figure out what they equate to and represent. They are there, they sum up and balance out perfectly, but what are they?

 

http://www.4shared.com/document/jbumdn6j/Pellegrino_notes_color.html

 

my spreadsheet can be downloaded for free at:

 

http://www.4shared.com/file/q8pXQBJZ/construct_of_energy_by_adam_pe.html .... this is an .ods extension

or

http://www.4shared.com/document/DfODVH-u/construct_of_energy_by_adam_pe.html ... this is an .xls extinsion

 

.ods is an open office extension and you can get a complete open office suite (word, spreadsheet, more program)

at http://download.openoffice.org/ (I love this suite as it is very nice and free and is updated a lot)

[insane_alien]

So, you created a gravitational formula from einsteins relativity?

 

you realise that is what genral relativity is right?

 

you spreadsheet is pretty unreadable. however it seems you never actually use any of the relativistic equations.

 

in particular, you use the fromula for newtonian momentum, i honestly haven't bothered trying to decipher the rest

 

from the pdf(some parts of that are unreadable as well. not to mention the Wall of Text layout) you seem to be assuming everything has a linear relationship and uses basic mathematical operations.

 

not once did i see any calculus which is essentiall for describing the systems you seem to be attempting to describe. there's a fair bit of handwavium as well.

 

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say or how successful you were in saying it.

[seasnake]

all advanced mathematics has lower mathematics as a base foundation, when problems exist at the base levels they are continued on in advanced math

 

I did take and use Newton's equation as well as Einstein's equation and any other already known and accepted equation that fit together in a way that everything sums up, balances out, and equates properly in spreadsheet form, where at every instance of time formulas always have the values they are supposed to have. Through such a structure Newton's formula of gravity only needed a minor adjustment to work exactly as he had expected it to work.

 

If relativity failed to work any or all of the equations would fall apart in relationship to each other, of which under a properly balanced formula structure they do not fail. I'm sorry if you find my spreadsheet crude, as it is only meant to show how everything balances out exactly as it should.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

okay, I see the error of confusion... I am dealing with classical mechanics and argue that classical mechanics actually entails relativity as the definition of a "second" as the measurment of time is defined in a way that shares the same flaw of someone measuring distance by someone's foot which fails to be the same foot size as everyone else, and I state as such as cycle measurements of caesium-123 are as dubious as the sizes of people's feet.

 

As stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second, "in 1967 the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the second of atomic time in the International System of Units as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" and "During the 1970s it was realized that gravitational time dilation caused the second produced by each atomic clock to differ depending on its altitude. A uniform second was produced by correcting the output of each atomic clock to mean sea level (the rotating geoid), lengthening the second by about 1×10⁻¹⁰. This correction was applied at the beginning of 1977 and formalized in 1980. In relativistic terms, the SI second is defined as the proper time on the rotating geoid."

 

I contend that the correction they made still failed to fix the dilution problem at all, and I show why that is in my writing. As such classical mechanics works just fine.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My work displays how the formulas construct and work as they should. They add up and balance out perfectly.

Edited January 22, 2011 by seasnake

[swansont]

okay, I see the error of confusion... I am dealing with classical mechanics and argue that classical mechanics actually entails relativity as the definition of a "second" as the measurment of time is defined in a way that shares the same flaw of someone measuring distance by someone's foot which fails to be the same foot size as everyone else, and I state as such as cycle measurements of caesium-123 are as dubious as the sizes of people's feet.

 

As stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second, "in 1967 the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the second of atomic time in the International System of Units as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" and "During the 1970s it was realized that gravitational time dilation caused the second produced by each atomic clock to differ depending on its altitude. A uniform second was produced by correcting the output of each atomic clock to mean sea level (the rotating geoid), lengthening the second by about 1×10⁻¹⁰. This correction was applied at the beginning of 1977 and formalized in 1980. In relativistic terms, the SI second is defined as the proper time on the rotating geoid."

 

I contend that the correction they made still failed to fix the dilution problem at all, and I show why that is in my writing. As such classical mechanics works just fine.

 

 

Why does GPS work, then?

 

BTW, I'm not patient enough to wait for the download for non-paying customers and I'm probably not the only one. You are almost certainly wrong, because the failures of classical physics are well-known and well-established, and the improvements of relativity are also well-known and well-established.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

seasnake: For files of a few megabytes or less, you can attach them to your post here at SFN instead of linking to a separate site. Use the full editor (hit Add Reply) and use the attachment features under the post entry box.

[seasnake]

The problem with the second as a measurement of time is that it wasn't sized in such a way that it could be used as a standard measurment, that is why the altitude adjustment update was made to the second, but because we are dealing with waves that have peaks and crests and widths the adjustment made fails to adjust for how such waves are compressed under different gravitational pulls, and that is why Einstein's Relativity works under the characteristics that it has. In my diagrams and formulas my formula of lightspeed is obtained when average gravitational speed equals gravitational speed which occurs when a wave becomes streight and at their longest length of equality. All characterists that Einstein had in Relativity are also present under my structure when the measurement of time is standardized. I do not claim to be the best variable labeller in regards to variables, but the structure is what is really remarkable, all variables sum up and balance out as they should even on a per moment basis and all non-summative equations also equal exactly as they should at all times. Vector relationships are still present, and the only formula I really changed outside of my quibble with how time is measured is the formula of gravity which is good cause we have been absent of a gravity formula that properly works.

 

From a quick websearch on "problems with GPS" I have found found over 74 million hits. From http://ezinearticles...Units&id=610360

can be read, "The number one source of inaccurate information come from the atmosphere. When the signal passes through the atmosphere to the satellites, it can encounter conditions that can speed it up or slow it down, thus affecting the time and the calculations that are given."

GPS works relatively well, but it is believed to have many potential threats and problems. Within a single gravitational system GPS may work just fine, but when more than one gravitational area is involved I believe GPS will be running into timing problems.

 

seasnake: For files of a few megabytes or less, you can attach them to your post here at SFN instead of linking to a separate site. Use the full editor (hit Add Reply) and use the attachment features under the post entry box.

 

 

Thanks, I just tried to attach my document files twice and both times it failed to upload. I think I exceed file size requirements or something.

Edited January 22, 2011 by seasnake

[timo]

Capn probably underestimated just how freaking big your pdf is. According to my User CP page

You have used 995.84K of 19.53MB

5%

You have 31 attachments (5% used)

.

so I guess ~20 MB is the limit.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm guessing it's 30MB+ because it's a handwritten text scanned into a PDF.

 

Reading the PDF, I can't see why it's significant to a physicist that "algebraic equations of closed systems generate perfectly balanced pictorial images".

 

Also, why are you representing the multiplication of two variables as vector addition? That seems arbitrary.

[seasnake]

I'm guessing it's 30MB+ because it's a handwritten text scanned into a PDF.

 

Reading the PDF, I can't see why it's significant to a physicist that "algebraic equations of closed systems generate perfectly balanced pictorial images".

 

Also, why are you representing the multiplication of two variables as vector addition? That seems arbitrary.

 

 

I made the pictorial images after working with the equations in spreadsheet form, not before. I spent a lot of time trying to get all the equations to add up, balance out, and having the per moment of time sums equate to the multiplication formulas that they were supposed to equal. I had many failed attempts and kept trying to figure out what would work in the same way as I would try to figure out why accounting balance sheets aren't adding up correctly. It was out of frustration that I started trying to map the formulas out so that I could obtain a better idea of what was happening and how I could hopefully resolve the problems I was having. That is the main purpose of making diagrams out of equations, to get an idea what is going on and how everything is balancing out and against everything else. That the diagrams came out as perfectly balanced pictorial images pretty much told me I was on the right track, that the formulas I was working with were going to accountable.

 

You ask why I am representing the multiplication of two variables as vector addition, and the reason becomes quite clear when you start taking a look at how the spread sheet circles about in the balancing out of numbers. Keep in mind that Newton defined force as a vector relationship, and that relationship is definately present in the equations cause we are dealing with a formula structure that follows a paths of convection (that is a circulatory path). You might also be looking at the variables as lacking dimensions, but that isn't at all how the variables are actually defined. I am displaying a gravitational system. The equational system I am using is something that is very rare indeed, for if you look and examine it you will notice that it really loses no information. Everything may look simple and basic to you, but trying to figure out this formula structure so that every variable sums up per moment as it should while equallying the multiplication and other formula values that it should (those equations that were already well known, that I did not at all make up) is quite out of the ordinary. You should also be made aware that I had to get all of those formulas to equate out properly before I could ever figure out and get the gravity formula to work. That I got Newton's gravity equation to sum up and equate with its multiplication value per moment of time by a very minor change to his formulation really surprised me a lot. I said to myself, it can't be that simple, and yet it worked and all formulas everywhere added up and equated to their respective formulas per moment of time. This is interesting as it bridges the gap between the formulas of Einstein and the formulas of Newton in that both of their formulas will now work exactly as they were supposed to work. I basically found the equational structure that allows these formulas to balance out correctly, I did not invent new equations or replace the old ones, except for a tweak upon Newton's gravity formula that everyone agrees that his doesn't really work but I simply adjusted it so now it does (I mean "Go Newton."

 

All formulas in the spreadsheet can be futher expanded out to represent more than case scenerios of only two variables. I mean that is pretty neat, isn't it?

 

I'll answer any questions you may have, but I did not make some sort of theory and then try to fit equations to it. I took equations and tried to figure out where they took me in the pursuit of getting everything to work and balance out properly. I hope you can understand that.

[swansont]

From a quick websearch on "problems with GPS" I have found found over 74 million hits. From http://ezinearticles...Units&id=610360

can be read, "The number one source of inaccurate information come from the atmosphere. When the signal passes through the atmosphere to the satellites, it can encounter conditions that can speed it up or slow it down, thus affecting the time and the calculations that are given."

GPS works relatively well, but it is believed to have many potential threats and problems. Within a single gravitational system GPS may work just fine, but when more than one gravitational area is involved I believe GPS will be running into timing problems.

 

That doesn't really address the question. GPS has measurement errors because all measurements have measurement errors, and speed of light differences because the signal passes through the atmosphere is no surprise. Yet, it works to within those bounds. It would not work if relativity were wrong.

[seasnake]

That doesn't really address the question. GPS has measurement errors because all measurements have measurement errors, and speed of light differences because the signal passes through the atmosphere is no surprise. Yet, it works to within those bounds. It would not work if relativity were wrong.

 

In terms of the measurement of time, as stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement, a problem in such measurement is that "the Earth's gravitational field varies slightly depending on height above sea level and other factors".

 

You might not agree with my stating what I did, but before me soo many others have pointed out the same problem and the very measure of a "second" was even adjusted back in the 70's as the measurements were unstable. Adjusting the measurements to by a sea level and heights may work well for localized time on this planet as far as GPS goes but if other planets also are found with sea levels and the planets are of other sizes, mass values, gravital values, and the like, the scales of measurement of a second on different planets would likely be as off as using different people's foot sizes as the measure of a foot, that is to say standardization is surely lost. If the units that GPS is using to measure with is off, GPS will still be shown to work accurately for that scale but the scale itself is off. It is like using weigh scales. One scale may be off from another one by weighing say 5% less. Everything you weigh on any one scale will appear to weigh properly and as they should. The moment you compare numbers between the scales though you notice that their figures don't match one another but they are still highly correlated in that heavier objects than others are still shown to be weighed heavier than others (the order of how heavy objects are wouldn't change, but the weight of all measurements would be).

[swansont]

In terms of the measurement of time, as stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement, a problem in such measurement is that "the Earth's gravitational field varies slightly depending on height above sea level and other factors".

 

You might not agree with my stating what I did, but before me soo many others have pointed out the same problem and the very measure of a "second" was even adjusted back in the 70's as the measurements were unstable. Adjusting the measurements to by a sea level and heights may work well for localized time on this planet as far as GPS goes but if other planets also are found with sea levels and the planets are of other sizes, mass values, gravital values, and the like, the scales of measurement of a second on different planets would likely be as off as using different people's foot sizes as the measure of a foot, that is to say standardization is surely lost. If the units that GPS is using to measure with is off, GPS will still be shown to work accurately for that scale but the scale itself is off. It is like using weigh scales. One scale may be off from another one by weighing say 5% less. Everything you weigh on any one scale will appear to weigh properly and as they should. The moment you compare numbers between the scales though you notice that their figures don't match one another but they are still highly correlated in that heavier objects than others are still shown to be weighed heavier than others (the order of how heavy objects are wouldn't change, but the weight of all measurements would be).

 

It's not as if the discrepancies are unknown and mysterious. They are part of the theory, which means they are predictable and can be compensated for. The corrections made in GPS for the speed and altitude of the satellite clocks permit the system to work — this isn't by accident. By being able to precisely adjust for the effects, the standardization is not lost.

[seasnake]

I'll likely be writing a new paper to present things a bit differently. What I have done is taken the E = MC^2 formula of Einstein and expanded it out to be equal to the E = FD formula of Newton so that all variables sum up and equal their formulas at all moments of time. The structure I found when I did this allowed me to find a formula structure of gravity that summed up properly to its equation. All equations I present in the structure were accepted formulas, except for the gravity formula no one had a properly working gravity formula to begin with. The gravity formula that I found works is the same exact formula Newton had when masses are equal to one another, but when they aren't equal instead of M1M2 what I found to work in the spreadsheet was M^2. I was able to break down C^2 into sS, where s = average speed and S = speed, as the average speed equals speed when their values are constants (when s = S, no compression of the line of speed is present and as such it basically represents a vaccuum condition). In essense the formulas that used to work, still work the same as ever before, everything is just arranged in both a charting system and spreadsheet system in a way analogous to a circulatory convection system.

 

From this I can go from Newton equations to Einstein equations. The problem I then have when discussing this with others is that people say Einstein's equations encompass relativity while Newton's don't. The challenge I post is that the reason would be is if our measurement of base variables such as the "second" are essentially wrongly measured such as in the example of people have different sized feet and should not use their own personal feet as one foot measuring sticks.

 

As to everything I have done or written about that is not purely equational/mathematical, I do not lay claim that anything else is or is not well written or right or wrong. I stick behind the equations, the equational structures, and the mathematics.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"It's not as if the discrepancies are unknown and mysterious. They are part of the theory, which means they are predictable and can be compensated for. The corrections made in GPS for the speed and altitude of the satellite clocks permit the system to work — this isn't by accident. By being able to precisely adjust for the effects, the standardization is not lost."

 

lol, those adjustments are made for one planet alone "Earth" and in only the gravitational pull of that planet and only in all the other affecting conditions of that planet... last I knew thought, there were many planets as well as other bodies in the universe

Edited January 24, 2011 by seasnake

[insane_alien]

lol, those adjustments are made for one planet alone "Earth" and in only the gravitational pull of that planet and only in all the other affecting conditions of that planet... last I knew thought, there were many planets as well as other bodies in the universe

 

yes there are but the specific parameters used in the GPS satellites are for earth only because earth is the only planet they orbit

 

If they orbited mars then they'd use correction parameters that work on mars and they can be predicted by general relativity. which is the point.

 

general relativity is the source of those correction parameters.

[seasnake]

yes there are but the specific parameters used in the GPS satellites are for earth only because earth is the only planet they orbit

 

If they orbited mars then they'd use correction parameters that work on mars and they can be predicted by general relativity. which is the point.

 

general relativity is the source of those correction parameters.

 

I am not in disagreement with you on those statements as you can micro-adjust everything to get GPS to work or at least well enough to be called well. I'm just saying that if the base measurements, such as that of a second, were measured in a correct way that did not suffer from sizing problem issues that fall along the lines of different sized feet based upon the individual to which they belong, that such correction parameters wouldn't be necessary. With better understanding technologies hopefully work even better than before. It has to be a pain for GPS to have to do all those adjustments if there is a way that it doesn't or wouldn't have to.

Edited January 24, 2011 by seasnake

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You'd have to measure the second differently at each velocity and gravitational field, due to time dilation.

[swansont]

lol, those adjustments are made for one planet alone "Earth" and in only the gravitational pull of that planet and only in all the other affecting conditions of that planet... last I knew thought, there were many planets as well as other bodies in the universe

 

There are. And there are relativistic measurements from some of them. General relativity predicts that spectral lines from stars would undergo a redshift, which has been observed. The Shapiro delay and path deviation have been measured for the sun. Gravitational lensing has been observed.

 

I am not in disagreement with you on those statements as you can micro-adjust everything to get GPS to work or at least well enough to be called well. I'm just saying that if the base measurements, such as that of a second, were measured in a correct way that did not suffer from sizing problem issues that fall along the lines of different sized feet based upon the individual to which they belong, that such correction parameters wouldn't be necessary. With better understanding technologies hopefully work even better than before. It has to be a pain for GPS to have to do all those adjustments if there is a way that it doesn't or wouldn't have to.

 

"Foot sizing" is a different problem.

[seasnake]

You'd have to measure the second differently at each velocity and gravitational field, due to time dilation.

 

 

if you go by Einstein's E = MC^2 equation that makes sense, however as I believe I have already mentioned earlier when looking at a span of time the E = MC^2 equation should be E = tMC^2 or else you will be running into a mirror in mirror type situation where in reflection of mirror images each one displays a mirrored image getting smaller and smaller in the tunnel of mirrors, but the actual object is really the same size it ever was before... in my work I think from page 21 to 24 I wrote and showed the math as to why the variable of t needs to be in the equation ... basically though, if you are using deficient equations you are going to have to make such adjustments as you mention here

Edited January 24, 2011 by seasnake

[insane_alien]

if you go by Einstein's E = MC^2 equation that makes sense, however as I believe I have already mentioned earlier when looking at a span of time the E = MC^2 equation should be E = tMC^2 or else you will be running into a mirror in mirror type situation where in reflection of mirror images each one displays a mirrored image getting smaller and smaller in the tunnel of mirrors, but the actual object is really the same size it ever was before... in my work I think from page 21 to 24 I wrote and showed the math as to why the variable of t needs to be in the equation ... basically though, if you are using deficient equations you are going to have to make such adjustments as you mention here

 

ah, there was me thinking you had actually read something about relativity.

 

that isn't the equation nor does it much apply to GR

[seasnake]

There are. And there are relativistic measurements from some of them. General relativity predicts that spectral lines from stars would undergo a redshift, which has been observed. The Shapiro delay and path deviation have been measured for the sun. Gravitational lensing has been observed.

 

 

 

"Foot sizing" is a different problem.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

redshifting would also be epected from the time delay present in adjusting E = MC^2 to E = tMC^2, so redshifting isn't really a relavent argument here I don't think

 

the Sapiro delay and path deviation is observed as a signal passing near a massive object takes slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than it would if the mass of the object were not present, which could very well be a problem with the measurement of the second which we have been discussing

 

as far as gravitational lensing goes, such bending does not fall outside of Newton's equations, nor the structure I present as Newton is dealing with vector relationships that bend and otherwise flow as such

 

when measuring period cycles such as we do with cesium 133 atom I think we really need to ask if those period cycles are not only uniform but also if they are affected by outside forces that will toss off their usefullness as universal measuring sticks

 

duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

the "foot sizing" problem is what makes people believe Einstein's formulas are relativistic but Newton's in contrast aren't... the difference in time measurements in one area from another would be expected as such when a "foot sizing" problem is present.

 

ah, there was me thinking you had actually read something about relativity.

 

that isn't the equation nor does it much apply to GR

 

I assume you are referring to Einstein's Field equations as in what you would like me to be using. Also when you say that E = MC^2 does not apply much to GR that you are saying that it should essentially just be tossed out. Otherwise, can you be a bit more specific so I know what you are talking about or getting at.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

acording to wikipedia on general relativity at http://en.wikipedia....eral_relativity

 

General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915. It is the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

 

......................... and that is essentially what I am dealing with, well to put it a different way the structure that I present will not change working equations into becoming non-working ones as I am not really changing formulas but rearranging them in a way that they fit best together and equate out right. Everything really fits together like a perfectly balanced puzzle, in the puzzle you may break everything further down and examine deeper and deeper levels of detail, such detail does not however take away from the structure of the whole. I would also like to say that anyone can download the spreadsheet I made and put in any data and test out any equations they would like. All the equations and variables in the spreadsheet are in perfect balance and equate out just as they should.

Edited January 24, 2011 by seasnake

[swansont]

the Sapiro delay and path deviation is observed as a signal passing near a massive object takes slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than it would if the mass of the object were not present, which could very well be a problem with the measurement of the second which we have been discussing

 

No, the measurement of the second is precise enough to measure this.

 

when measuring period cycles such as we do with cesium 133 atom I think we really need to ask if those period cycles are not only uniform but also if they are affected by outside forces that will toss off their usefullness as universal measuring sticks

 

The degree to which atoms are identical has ramifications in how they interact, and the evidence is that they are. It allows people to make things like Bose-Einstein condensates and Fermi degenerate gases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

 

We also take great care to prevent outside effects from perturbing the atoms.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

[imath]E=mc^2[/imath] is a small portion of general relativity. Also, the general form of the equation is actually [imath]E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4[/imath], where p is momentum; [imath]E=mc^2[/imath] only holds for stationary particles.

 

Also, how do you expect this equation to work:

 

[math]E= t m c^2[/math]

 

E represents energy. t is time, m is a mass, and c is a velocity. Using those units:

 

[math]E = \mbox{seconds} \cdot \mbox{kg} \cdot \frac{\mbox{meters}^2}{\mbox{seconds}^2}[/math]

 

Now, units of energy are Joules, which is:

 

[math]1 \mbox{J} = 1 \; \frac{\mbox{kg} \cdot \mbox{meter}}{\mbox{second}^2}[/math]

 

whereas your equation gets:

 

[math]\frac{\mbox{kg} \cdot \mbox{meter}}{\mbox{second}}[/math]

 

Note the subtle difference. Your version of the equation does not give an energy as the result, and so it cannot be correct. Energy cannot be equal to something that isn't an energy.

[Bignose]

Also, how do you expect this equation to work:

 

[math]E= t m c^2[/math]

 

E represents energy. t is time, m is a mass, and c is a velocity. Using those units:

 

[math]E = \mbox{seconds} \cdot \mbox{kg} \cdot \frac{\mbox{meters}^2}{\mbox{seconds}^2}[/math] ....

 

Yes, this was my immediate first reaction to this too. This dimensional inconsistency needs to be addressed post-haste.

[seasnake]

is a small portion of general relativity. Also, the general form of the equation is actually , where p is momentum; only holds for stationary particles.

 

------------------------- I know it may be only a small portion but it is still a portion of it.

 

Also, how do you expect this equation to work:

 

 

.... t is the change in time from one period of time to the next, I used T to represent the summation of time

 

E represents energy. t is time, m is a mass, and c is a velocity. Using those units:

 

 

Now, units of energy are Joules, which is:

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------- I expressed out this structure in diagram and equational form in my notes

 

whereas your equation gets:

 

 

Note the subtle difference. Your version of the equation does not give an energy as the result, and so it cannot be correct. Energy cannot be equal to something that isn't an energy.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

the volt equation that I worked out that fits to my graph structure on page 18 of my notes is:

 

Volt = V = W / A = NM / AS = Kg M^2 / (C S^2) = NM / C = J / L

 

where:

V = volt

W = watt

A = ampre

J = joule

S = seconds

N = newtons

M = metres

Kg = kilograms

 

this stucture has your

equation exactly as you have it

 

 

-------------------------

 

swansont, I am not exactly sure what all the effects of a change in how a second is measured would effect everything. I know the structure I found is solid in its mathematics, I mean it really is a perfect structure that just doesn't pop up out of nowhere. If you look at my spreadsheet you will see what I mean by that. I believe the way I have things structured and equated is worth looking at. How the variables can be further confined and modified in terms of more advanced applications of math in terms of physics may well be outside of my personal knowledge and ability to handle. I wish I were more knowledgeable than I am, but what I have found and done lies at the foundation and base of quite a lot. I think what I have achieved can be expressed and expanded out by those more adept and astute than I. I swear in the structure and the perfect summation and balance of all the equations.

Edited January 25, 2011 by seasnake

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

the volt equation that I worked out that fits to my graph structure on page 18 of my notes is:

 

Volt = V = W / A = NM / AS = Kg M^2 / (C S^2) = NM / C = J / C

 

where:

V = volt

W = watt

A = ampre

J = joule

S = seconds

N = newtons

M = metres

Kg = kilograms

 

this stucture has your

equation exactly as you have it

This has nothing to do with volts; none of the units in [imath]E=mc^2[/imath] are volts. You cannot expect that when you multiply an energy by time, you get energy.