Formula of speed

[DimaMazin]

Interaction of kinetic energy and time defines speed of massive object.High energy has ability to interact with less quantity of time.Low energy has ability to interact with more quantity of time.

 

v=(E/m)^1/2t'/t

 

v - speed

E - kinetic energy

m - gravitational mass

t' - quantity of time interacted with the kinetic energy

t - time of supervision

[Bignose]

why do we need a replacement for [math]v = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math] ?

[DimaMazin]

why do we need a replacement for [math]v = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math] ?

Ascertaining of a fact is not definition of a reason. If your science does not define a reason then is it high-grade?

[CaptainPanic]

Ascertaining of a fact is not definition of a reason. If your science does not define a reason then is it high-grade?

You don't need a reason to know something, or to call something science. But you do need a reason to write it on a forum, and to think that other people should read it.

 

So, I guess Bignose just wanted to know why we should be interested in your new formula for speed.

[DimaMazin]

You don't need a reason to know something, or to call something science. But you do need a reason to write it on a forum, and to think that other people should read it.

 

So, I guess Bignose just wanted to know why we should be interested in your new formula for speed.

Theoretical perspective can attract people.Probably there are substances which are stores of time. And if we add them to energy of movement of a spacecraft then we receive additional speed to the same energy.

 

If your speed is based more on a time than on an energy then collision will render less damages to you.

[Bignose]

Ascertaining of a fact is not definition of a reason. If your science does not define a reason then is it high-grade?

 

And this doesn't answer my question. [math]v = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math] has been supremely successful. Why does it need a replacement?

[CaptainPanic]

Theoretical perspective can attract people.Probably there are substances which are stores of time. And if we add them to energy of movement of a spacecraft then we receive additional speed to the same energy.

That's counter intuitive for me.

I would think you get additional distance, if you maintain your velocity for the same time, which means you keep the same (kinetic) energy for a longer period of time (and you do not get more energy).

Or, you get additional (kinetic) energy, and therefore a higher velocity, if you would apply the same power for a longer period of time. But then you would need a new formula, because yours doesn't include power or acceleration.

 

And this doesn't answer my question. [math]v = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math] has been supremely successful. Why does it need a replacement?

That is obvious now. Because it doesn't allow you to include these substances which are stores of time, whatever they may be.

[DimaMazin]

And this doesn't answer my question. [math]v = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math] has been supremely successful. Why does it need a replacement?

If the past successes feed you enough then you can not worry about new successes . But less successful people(in past) would like to have new work.

dx does not show it's reason .

 

 

 

 

That's counter intuitive for me.

I would think you get additional distance, if you maintain your velocity for the same time, which means you keep the same (kinetic) energy for a longer period of time (and you do not get more energy).

Or, you get additional (kinetic) energy, and therefore a higher velocity, if you would apply the same power for a longer period of time. But then you would need a new formula, because yours doesn't include power or acceleration.

 

 

That is obvious now. Because it doesn't allow you to include these substances which are stores of time, whatever they may be.

In nature cases exist when object loses energy,but resieves speed. Time matters.

[Bignose]

If the past successes feed you enough then you can not worry about new successes . But less successful people(in past) would like to have new work.

dx does not show it's reason .

 

No, there's a reason for dx to be there. It is the infintesimal change of position.

 

So, rather than be cryptic, and not answer the question I've asked twice. How about I ask it is a slightly different way: please post an example where your definition is needed and the old definition fails. That is, post one of your 'new successes'. While you're at it, also post explicitly how your formula reduces to the tried in true in all the situations where there are past successes (there are a lot of them).

[DimaMazin]

No, there's a reason for dx to be there. It is the infintesimal change of position.

 

So, rather than be cryptic, and not answer the question I've asked twice. How about I ask it is a slightly different way: please post an example where your definition is needed and the old definition fails. That is, post one of your 'new successes'. While you're at it, also post explicitly how your formula reduces to the tried in true in all the situations where there are past successes (there are a lot of them).

Spaceship moves because it has infintesimal change of position. Your inability is not success of modern science.I can.Energy has gearing with space by means of quantity of time.I can calculate this quantity of time.

[CaptainPanic]

Oh well, I'm done with this. We've asked a couple of times, and I guess DimaMazin is just too smart for us. I certainly have no idea what he is talking about.

[Bignose]

Spaceship moves because it has infintesimal change of position. Your inability is not success of modern science.I can.Energy has gearing with space by means of quantity of time.I can calculate this quantity of time.

 

the definition of velocity says nothing at all about why it moves. Why do you think that the velocity should have the why in it? 5 m/s is 5 m/s whether that motion is because the object is falling, or was struck, or a cat sneezed on it. I still wish you would provide an example where the tried and true definition fails. Since you claim to be able to calculate it, why don't you present such a calculation?

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bignose

[DimaMazin]

the definition of velocity says nothing at all about why it moves. Why do you think that the velocity should have the why in it? 5 m/s is 5 m/s whether that motion is because the object is falling, or was struck, or a cat sneezed on it. I still wish you would provide an example where the tried and true definition fails. Since you claim to be able to calculate it, why don't you present such a calculation?

My formula is not for definition of speed.My formula defines time, which interacts with energy.Certainly if you knows such time then you can define speed.Interaction of energy and time creates speed.We need to know quantity of energy,why we don't need to know quantity of interacting time? Edited May 5, 2012 by DimaMazin

[Bignose]

v=(E/m)^1/2t'/t

 

v - speed

 

My formula is not for definition of speed.

 

I must have been confused by the first post in this thread, AND THE FREAKING TITLE OF THE THREAD!!! So, one last time -- are you going to provide a detailed calculation. Having been asked, you need to provide one per the rule of this section of the forum. You've already posted that you can provide it -- so what's the delay?

Edited May 6, 2012 by Bignose

[DimaMazin]

I must have been confused by the first post in this thread, AND THE FREAKING TITLE OF THE THREAD!!! So, one last time -- are you going to provide a detailed calculation. Having been asked, you need to provide one per the rule of this section of the forum. You've already posted that you can provide it -- so what's the delay?

Refraction of local movements creates length contraction of object. How you can explain a reason of the refraction without definition of quantity of interacting time?

[Klaynos]

Refraction of local movements creates length contraction of object. How you can explain a reason of the refraction without definition of quantity of interacting time?

 

!

Moderator Note

You appear to be deliberately avoiding the question, we tend not to play that game here as it is against our rules. Please check out the speculations forum rules which can be found here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Time to stop tap-dancing around the questions that have been asked. As per speculations rule 1, you need to give us something to back up your claim. Some scenario where this applies, where it is an improvement over existing definition, something. Anything.

If not, then it will be closed. Responding to this modnote in this thread will be a signal that you aren't interested in discussing the subject matter.