Calculate Gravitational Effects without Time, Acceleration or Velocity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a proposed equation for calculating gravitational effects without relying on time, acceleration, or velocity, which challenges conventional physics. The equation aims to determine the change in position between two gravitationally attracted objects based on their masses and changes in electromagnetic radiation wavelength. The poster seeks feedback on the significance of this approach and its potential implications for understanding gravity and time. Empirical data supporting the equation is available, and the poster is open to collaboration for further refinement and potential publication. The inquiry raises questions about the validity and applications of this unconventional method in gravitational studies.
jheising
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Greetings,

Long time reader, first time poster, so try to go easy on me :redface:

I'd love to get a sanity check on something my father discovered and I've been helping him refine. We're not professional physicists, so we've had to take to the Internet to discuss and collaborate. Before you roll your eyes at another Internet crackpot theory, please quickly read over— it's a simple equation that can be validated with empirical data. Maybe it's nothing, or maybe it's significant— I guess you'll be the judge.

Here it is:

Is it possible to calculate the gravitational effects of a system without any knowledge or use of acceleration, velocity and time? What if I could show a simple equation and proof that you could— an equation that works equally well for both Newtonian and Relativity based systems.

The following novel equation is presented to calculate the change in position between two gravitationally attracted objects based on their mass and an observed absolute change in a source of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) wavelength as measured from one object to the other:

\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tige}
\Delta r = \frac{1}{m_1 + m_2} \times \frac{r^2}{H_s} \times \frac{\Delta \lambda ^ 2}{\lambda ^ 2}
\end{equation}

where:

Δr = (meters) is the calculated change in distance between the two objects
m1 = (kilograms) is the mass of Object 1
m2 = (kilograms) is the mass of Object 2
r = (meters) is the starting distance between Object 1 and Object 2
Hs = (meters / kilogram) is a proportionality constant defined as 1.4851315×10−27
Δλ = (meters) is the change in the EMR source’s wavelength as observed at some other arbitrary point
λ = (meters) is the measured wavelength of an EMR source emitted from one object as seen from the other object at the starting distance

Empirical Proof

Can be found in the document here: http://bit.ly/1nB8U5r. This is a super early draft of a paper, so it needs a lot of work, but the empirical data should be sound. I also have an Excel spreadsheet with the data and math that I can upload if anyone cares to look closer.

Questions
  • Is this significant?
  • Why/how does this work when every conventional gravitational calculation we know of involves time?
  • If we can calculate gravitational effects without time, what does this say about time?
  • Are there other applications of this equation?
  • Is this worthy to finalize into a formal paper and submit to a peer-reviewed journal? Anyone with professional expertise in that area want to help and/or collaborate?

Would really appreciate any help or feedback!

Cheers,

-jim
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Closed, pending moderation.

Zz.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top