johnny2710 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 the new of everything., Joan rodriguez vixra. when Albert Einstein took his formula., the equations were 10 equations but was incomplete., now you can see that. The space-time equation is T=+C2.. E=M*C2. M=Eo/C2. T=E+C2. my theory of everything has 42 pages., my age is 18 years old. Po s t a re ply My theory talk about The space-time., accepted in journal of advances in physics. -3
Fuzzwood Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 You know that you only worked with the condensed form of the equation, with the assumption of a rest mass?
johnny2710 Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) this equation is for the space-time., if you put the three forms., energy., light., and energy., well considering that., time is the fourth dimension., this mean that E=M*C2. multiplication form. M=Eo/C2. division form. T= space-time. adding form. T=E+C2. and yes.!!! the rest mass., is for thr assumption form., is the heliocentric model of the universe., thanks and if you considered that this is the equation., for the diameter for the sun. T=E+C2-(C2-2km/s*C2-2km/s)+E thanks. Edited August 24, 2015 by johnny2710 -2
Sensei Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 You're mixing units. Time is in seconds, Length is in meters, Energy is in Joules, which is kg*m^2/s^2 Mass is in kg. You cannot add two or more variables/const with different units.
Fuzzwood Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) My guess is that you need to learn (basic) mathematics, calculus and physics first. THEN try to tell that people who did learn all these things and much more forgot something in their theories. Edited August 24, 2015 by Fuzzwood
Phi for All Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 ! Moderator Note We need to keep speculative science out of the mainstream sections, so students don't think they can use your idea to pass their test. I'm moving this to Speculations, please make sure to read the special rules governing that section. If you have objections to the move, Report this post, but please don't talk about them here.
johnny2710 Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 yes., the really formula is C2*C2+10^10 thanks. Journal of advances in physics., accept my theory., and they call me to the,Cap 2015., I dont know anything., of math and physics., then you will get this formula in the future., have you ever had an acceptable paper to journal of advances in physics., 18 years iold. sorry., if my theory is bad., but this is the reality. with the knowledge is very difficult., to understand., but with intuition you can find it.!!!!! -3
pzkpfw Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (There are plenty of journals which accept anything for inclusion, sometimes for money, sometimes just for padding. Simple inclusion in this on-line journal is not evidence of anything. Frankly, your mangling of the text you're writing here does not give me confidence.) If you wish anyone to take your idea seriously, you need to show the derivation and the evidence. You can't simply say "here it is" and expect anything.
johnny2710 Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 light, energy, matter., and space-time. are The same in one. sensei i know., but this equation is very imprensive., look for The constants and are The same procedure., please., adding, multiplication, division and rest., i am only 18 years old. with an high intuition., sorry. cap 2015., and is bad., sorry. this theory The problem is that The matter(knowledge)., cant with The light., ( intuition). if My equation is good., i will be nominated. is difficult to answer The equation wmith derivation. i did 42 pages with intuition.
swansont Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 yes., the really formula is C2*C2+10^10 thanks. Still have an issue with units. I dont know anything., of math and physics., That would be a problem if you are trying to overturn a physics theory. this is the reality. with the knowledge is very difficult., to understand., but with intuition you can find it.!!!!! Intuition is not a substitute for rigor. Is there anything you can predict with your idea, such that it may be tested? 2
johnny2710 Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 The same is The same., sorry. you will find The equation in a future., sorry., but i think in a very smart form.
Phi for All Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 The same is The same., sorry. you will find The equation in a future., sorry., but i think in a very smart form. ! Moderator Note You've been shown the equation is flawed, it has units that can't be mixed like this in the same equation. Also, you need to find a way to communicate this idea to anyone listening. If it only makes sense to you, it is NOT science. Please try to overcome these two obstacles before going further, otherwise this discussion is pointless. Please listen to what these people are telling you, you don't know math and physics, by your own admission. On a related note, The Journal of Advances in Physics is on several predatory-publishing watchlists. They are not considered a rigorous journal.
johnny2710 Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 well., but is correct., and sorry I have many things to do., the bad things is when you see anything. -4
Klaynos Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 First test with any new equation is dimensional analysis. If it fails that (which people have shown it does hence unit problems) the equation is wrong and can be happily dismissed.
pzkpfw Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 First test with any new equation is dimensional analysis. If it fails that (which people have shown it does hence unit problems) the equation is wrong and can be happily dismissed. ... and this is something "peer reviewers" would have picked up if the Journal of advances in physics was worth anything. 1
johnny2710 Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 yes., the equation of Einstein was bad., because was the same., with the same prodesure., please you dont know what you are talking about., be theory explain the chatelain equation., the ninive constant., where any person in the world can solve it., thi is why my equation is good., my equation really is T=C2+10^10., thanks. This is my really equation published.
ajb Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 ... accepted in journal of advances in physics. Not to be confused with the reputable Advances in Physics.
swansont Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 please you dont know what you are talking about Yes, actually, we do. 1
ajb Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) I do not know why, but I spent 2 minutes looking at the viXra article. It looks a bit like a school project gone tragically wrong. It seems to contain snip-bits of basic facts, some analogies and some nice picture. It is nothing like any paper in physics I have read. If that was published, then shame on the journal. johnny2710, you need to read some graduate level physics monographs and text books while at the same time reading papers on the subjects that interest you. Without this background you will not produce any meaningful work; I am sorry that the journal you submitted to did not just reject your paper at the editorial stage. In truth, your best chance of making a contribution is to get a degree in physics (or something close), go to grad school and get a PhD. Then if you work hard you may make some contribution. I wish you luck, but please try to listen to what people here say. We don't want to attack you personally, rather we want to help you. Edited August 25, 2015 by ajb 3
Strange Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Wow. What a mess. Much of it is copied from Wikipedia (including the "[Edit]" links ) and machine translated.
johnny2710 Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 I know., and other thing what was your aportation in physics to the contribution in humanity., I am very stupid., yes I know., but I think that I did a thing., I believe in god., this is why my theory cant be replaced. I put Descartes., Tesla., and me., but if you think that this theory is bad., dont put your answer., I dont to put a degree in mathematics and less physics., I did conttibutions in economics., this is my degree., not the physics., sorry if is bad. -1
Fuzzwood Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) ...please you dont know what you are talking about., be theory explain the chatelain equation... You might want to read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Also, science doesn't care about your beliefs, nor is it influenced by it. So please leave your favorite deity at the door when you wish to discuss science. Edited August 25, 2015 by Fuzzwood
johnny2710 Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 what is your ages., I think that my age is much less than you., but,please., I dont know physics., if you thing that is bad., thanks., but this is not my career., is the economics., in this career I am the best in the best., I won championships in my country., thanks. you never could know that I think., I think very profound., in thinking thinks., God can say that I think., not the atheism. -1
Fuzzwood Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Age has nothing to do with science either. Laws of physics hold no matter when you were born. 2
Strange Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 what is your ages., I think that my age is much less than you., but,please., I dont know physics. If you don't know physics, why are you claiming to have a theory in physics. is the economics., in this career I am the best in the best. If you are good at economics, then you should stick to that and not try and post nonsense pretending to be physics. 1
Recommended Posts