Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[ArmoSkater87]

Wait I think I figured out his steps:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
E^2/(m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2) = 1
E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) = 1 + p^2 - Personnaly I like this step very much
E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2)-1 = p^2

lol, that step you personally like is very impossible and not true. I really don't think that equation is manipulated right.

I think this is the best and easiest way to solve for momentum...

E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2
\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2} = p^2
p=\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m_0^2c^4}}{c}

 

[Alkatran]

Provide me with a credited source about exactly how many neutrinos interact.

Think of it this way, let's say there are N neutrinos headed towards us per square meter. For simplification let's assume that both the wave of neutrinos headed towards us flat, and so are we. (it's so close it won't matter).

Now, let's assume that for every cubic meter, Y% of the neutrinos are absorbed. Let's also say each neutrino gives off a push of X
Let's also say the planet is only 1 meter deep.

You're in a forest, above you there are branches and leaves, making up 1 cubic meter: Push on trees: N*Y*X

Then the neutrinos hit you:
Push on you: N * Y^2 * X

Then the ground:
N * Y^3 * X

The only thing changing in this equation is the exponent on Y. Let's say Y is 50% (a very large amount is absorbed)

The trees get a force of .5NX
You get half that
The ground get's half that
You're being pushed into the ground with a force of nx.5^2-nx.5^3 = .125NX Newtons. And the trees are being pushed into the ground at .375 Newtons (assuming they have massively thin trunks)

That means that trees weigh three times as much as you per kilogram. Oh, and when you walk out from under the trees your weight triples.

Alright so a high number isn't going to work. We need a lower % of absorption, or else things above other things would weigh MUCH more than the things below. Ok, then, let's put Y at 1%

Force on trees: .01nx
Force on you: .0099nx
Force on earth: 0.009801

Alright, now the numbers are a lot more equal! Oh wait, oh no! We're floating! Oh shi-...

It gets worse when then planet is getting 100000 more absorption than us. and if the % absorbed is very low the neutrinos are going to affect people on the other side of the planet...

 

[Alkatran]

lol, that step you personally like is very impossible and not true. I really don't think that equation is manipulated right.

I think this is the best and easiest way to solve for momentum...

E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2
\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2} = p^2
p=\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m_0^2c^4}}{c}

I'm really hoping you got the joke.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

lol, nice explanation Alkatran. :D

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Armo, answer is negative. The rest of you I don't have time to read what you provided continually, so when i get home I'll read it. I probably won't be home tonight, because I'm actually going to have a life, rather than have a life in physics.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

Wow ok, so now you're going to say that everyone here has no life because they like physics.

 

[Alkatran]

Armo, answer is negative. The rest of you I don't have time to read what you provided continually, so when i get home I'll read it. I probably won't be home tonight, because I'm actually going to have a life, rather than have a life in physics.

Uh huh, that's great. I'd go out but I live a half hour from anyone and my girlfriend is camping.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

Alkatran, i thought u were supporting this theory. Btw, how old are u?

 

[Alkatran]

Alkatran, i thought u were supporting this theory. Btw, how old are u?

I wasn't supporting the theory, I was supporting my theory that density affected curvature at a point. But I proved myself wrong (a rare feat for most!).

17.

 

[DeShiznit44]

ok, look urtalkinstupid. We all have lives. We're not 15 yr old kids trying to prove a theory that has less weight than a neutrino. The very first message u posted stated that you wre open for critisism and questions yet you have still reacted negativly maybe because u are not mature enough to be open minded about our answers/comments or you are just horribly stubborn. Either way it doesn't matter. We thought about your theory and it leaves waaaaay to many questions unanswered. Further more it has made u contradict yourself. You infered in the first post u made that experiments would be needed to prove this theory and then u said a few posts ago that experiments don''t count for anything. Now ur going to say we don't believe you and are critisizing you because you are young. No, we're not. We're treating you as old as you are acting. To coment about our personal lives when you don't even know us is ridiculus. You've made more comments on this thread than any of us. If anyone doesn't have a life stupid, it's you. I'm going to go have dinner with my girlfriend now. If you have any other parts of this theory you would like us to point out the holes in, pease feel free to let us know.

 

[DeShiznit44]

And Alkatran, I'm impressed, i expected you to be older lol. You have a really good understanding.

 

[Alkatran]

And Alkatran, I'm impressed, i expected you to be older lol. You have a really good understanding.

Thank you. I owe it all to trying to figure it out for myself, and not paying attention to my high school teachers.

Mind you, I had an awful string of math and physics teachers in high school. REALLY bad. I'm talking "Here's 5 problems to do for the next 3 classes" bad. I'm talking "You got 2/10 on that question because you didn't use the method I taught you" bad. (I had solved a geometric equation with a quick little shortcut: T(3) = 9, T(6) = 81, T(9) = ?, I said since 6-3 = 9-6 that T(6)/T(3)=T(9)/T(6) so T(9) = T(6)/T(3)*T(6). But NO. I had to SOLVE T(6)/T(3) and figure out all this obvious stuff...)

*edit* Wow. That turned from an innocent thank you to a rant. Sorry about that.
I'd say more but I really would come off as arrogant. Like I just did. Right there too. And...

 

[ArmoSkater87]

yea Alkatran you're pretty smart, I am 17 too, Deshiznit will be 17 very soon.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

The current theory aslo has WAYYY too many questions unanswered. So, don't try that. Tell terrabyte not to comment on everyone's personal lives. Don't just point me out. Why is it so hard to unify General Relativity with Special Relativity or Quantum Physics? There are obvioulsy WAYYY too many questions unanswered, because of the hassle that arouses up from trying to combine them.

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Yea, Alkatran, I feel you on the bad teacher thing. As you can tell, I've quite a few bad teachers myself.

ArmoSkater87, you still think gravity travels at the speed you mentioned? HAH, I'm sure everyone can agree with me for once on this one.

 

[terrabyte]

leave me out of the discussion completely before i have to go back and quote you two provoking me.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Welcome back, terrabyte. You started getting into people's lives. I was simply telling them that I'm not the ONLY one. Not trying to bring you in; I'm just trying to point you out to tell these people that other people are making unecessary comments.

 

[Alkatran]

The current theory aslo has WAYYY too many questions unanswered. So, don't try that. Tell terrabyte not to comment on everyone's personal lives. Don't just point me out. Why is it so hard to unify General Relativity with Special Relativity or Quantum Physics? There are obvioulsy WAYYY too many questions unanswered, because of the hassle that arouses up from trying to combine them.

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Yea, Alkatran, I feel you on the bad teacher thing. As you can tell, I've quite a few bad teachers myself.

The universe is expanding because it is moving at a very high speed. Gravity can't stop objects after a certain speed (duh, you knew that). Anything that has 0 rest mass can theoritcly move at the speed of light, because it accelerates instantly (or so I assume! Don't trust me on this).

When something gets more dense there is a more devastating effect because of the massive curvature at ONE SPOT instead of having spread out over a large area. If you go to the center of the sun, you're being pulled from all directions and don't accelerate very much, besides being cooked alive. However, if the sun was the size of a dime, you would implode because there's nothing on the outside to balance it out.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

I want sources that prove this stuff. So, can you provide?

 

[ArmoSkater87]

But you don't understand...those questions that you mention actually have answers or at least partial answers that make sense in terms of out understanding of physics at this point. GR/SR and QM have been united before. Stephen Hawking united them and proved that black holes slowly evaporate. The event horrizon of black holes might not even excist, we really don't know much about black holes since they are so far away and hard to detect. This is why you can have large debates about black holes and no one can actuallty prove much about them since out knowledge of them is so limited. About the density...its because of the equation Fg = Gm1m2/r^2, g=Gm/r^2...dividing by a smaller radius means and at the same time having the same mass, means more density...and therefore the gravity increases.

"If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?"
Not a bad point actually.

 

[Alkatran]

I want sources that prove this stuff. So, can you provide?

The black hole thing is simple common sense. If you go inside an object of equal density througout, you are only affected by the mass towards the center (from you) and not the outside. The outside "shell" completely nullifies itself. Since by the time you reach the inside of the matter of a black hole you've passed the events horizon... well you're not going anywhere.

As for the very high speed thing allowing expansion: Consider this, you launch a rocket off Earth going 0.9c.

What happens? For a fraction of a second the light feels more than 9m/s^2 of acceleration, then it gets further away from the earth. Soon the pull is 8, then 7, 6... in fact, the decrease in acceleration is so high that the rocket will NEVER stop due to the Earth's gravity. It may get close to stopping, but it will always be moving forward.

I'm trying to figure out the maths for this in my head. I find myself going in circles, but give me a minute.

 

[terrabyte]

I'm just trying to point you out to tell these people that other people are making unecessary comments.

oh, mine were completely necessary...

 

[urtalkinstupid]

GIVE ME SOURCES! terrabyte, insults are NEVER necessary.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

ArmoSkater87, you still think gravity travels at the speed you mentioned? HAH, I'm sure everyone can agree with me for once on this one.

HUH?? When did i say anything about the speed gravity travels at??

 

[urtalkinstupid]

I DUNNO IM SEEING THINGS! I want sources though, so that you people can turn me into a believer. GIMME.

 

[Nereid]

Yes, I agree no observational evidence Pluto is drifting. It should be drifting ever so slightly if space-time curvature were keeping it in place,

By how much?

but it isn't because its orbit is sustained by sub-atomic forces.

and what is the equation which describes that sustenance?

May I ask you what is the evidence of space-time curvature? Is it the bending of light?

The evidence is the many experimental and observational results which are consistent with General Relativity (and the lack of any which are inconsistent with it). The 'bending of light' is just one effect.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

haha, my sources are from physicists and my physics tecaher and a whole lot of research I've done myself in the past years, fortunatlly my physics teacher is the greatest teacher I've ever had.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

That provides me no source.

Have you people ever had doubts about the theories that are popular today? That question has an obvious answer. You people follow everything only if it is by some credited scientists. So, Hawking's redid his theory. It seems that I've always thought no information is lost. I also thought that no information is even falls in due to the fact I think black holes do not exist. A theory that you people have cherished so well for 29 years, turned around by the same person who proposed it...my, my, my.

Please, I want highly credited sources. You wanted sources from me; I want sources from you that are thorough enough, yet easy to interpret. Hopefully they can sway me, right?

 

[ArmoSkater87]

what specifically do u want sources for?? The whole thing about neutrinos not interacting?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

In case you are unaware what I have previously posted, here it is again:

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

 

[Alkatran]

In case you are unaware what I have previously posted, here it is again:

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Alright, fine: Read a brief history of time by stephen hawking (honestly, I don't know if I got his name right)

In that book, it says something along the lines of: Since light can't escape a black hole, and nothing moves faster than light, and mass has no effect on the acceleration of gravity, nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole. Therefor we can get no information from within.
His theory about black holes emitting hawking radiation goes against this, yes, but the emitions are unpredictable so no information is actually revealed.

I already explained why black holes act like they do, do a google search. Look, here's some random site I found:
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

Personnaly, I thought the cosmological constant was abandoned once it was discovered the universe wasn't static, but expanding. The only purpose the thing had was to keep the universe stable.

Photons have no rest mass, they move the speed of light. If neutrinos have no rest mass it's likely they would act like photons and just blaze along at c. And "nothing can move at the speed of light" is an incorrect statement. Because, obviously, light moves at the speed of light. All you need to do is mimic the property(ies) that allow light to do this and you reach c.

 

[DeShiznit44]

urtalkinstupid has a really good point, sources need to be provided but the problem is these questions are questions that top scientists of our day don't have definite answers to. Now, as to teh gravity being an attractive force and the universe still expanding. Now, i know it's not the greatest of theories but let's see what we know. It is conradictory to what we think when we see the universe is expanding but gravity should be pulling it back together. Now i think of it sort of like a "Conservation of Gravity". in order for teh universe to balance itself out since i think the total energy of the universe is 0 (not to sure on that point, correct me if I'm wrong) I think of it like gravity negating itself. An unkown force, if u will, that acts against gravity pushing the universe (or pulling, lol) apart.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

I don't understand why you want sources for these questions. It is irellivant to your theory, but i gave you answers to most of them...adn i don't see why you would need sources for some of there, some are just really obvious...No one has ever seen an event horizon, and no one knows if it really excists, i think that answers that. I don't know anything about what the cosmilogical constant is. Gravity is actually most likely a push force since there really is not such thing as "pull". When you pull something, you are actually don't "pull", you push in the opposite direction. The universe is accelerating for an unknown reason, right now scientists say its because of dark matter. I don't know about black holes forming in the biginning of the universe, i really don't know how much in the biginning you mean by that. If a star is massive enough its life can be cut down to only hundreds of thousands of years, which is very short compared to most stars. About the gravity of denser objects...thats pretty obvious from the gravity force equation.

 

[Alkatran]

I don't understand why you want sources for these questions. It is irellivant to your theory, but i gave you answers to most of them...adn i don't see why you would need sources for some of there, some are just really obvious...No one has ever seen an event horizon, and no one knows if it really excists, i think that answers that. I don't know anything about what the cosmilogical constant is. Gravity is actually most likely a push force since there really is not such thing as "pull". When you pull something, you are actually don't "pull", you push in the opposite direction. The universe is accelerating for an unknown reason, right now scientists say its because of dark matter. I don't know about black holes forming in the biginning of the universe, i really don't know how much in the biginning you mean by that. If a star is massive enough its life can be cut down to only hundreds of thousands of years, which is very short compared to most stars. About the gravity of denser objects...thats pretty obvious from the gravity force equation.

I say that there is no pushing and merely pulling in the opposite direction!

Prove me wrong. Ya, that's what I thought.

Oh wait, we're both wrong. Consider an electron between an electron and a proton. The center electron is being pushed by the other electron and pulled by the proton.

 

[Alkatran]

urtalkinstupid has a really good point, sources need to be provided but the problem is these questions are questions that top scientists of our day don't have definite answers to. Now, as to teh gravity being an attractive force and the universe still expanding. Now, i know it's not the greatest of theories but let's see what we know. It is conradictory to what we think when we see the universe is expanding but gravity should be pulling it back together. Now i think of it sort of like a "Conservation of Gravity". in order for teh universe to balance itself out since i think the total energy of the universe is 0 (not to sure on that point, correct me if I'm wrong) I think of it like gravity negating itself. An unkown force, if u will, that acts against gravity pushing the universe (or pulling, lol) apart.

The "conservation of gravity" is the force on the opposite object. The change in inertia of each is equal. There's no reason for there to be, or not to be, an anti-gravity. (unless you count the universe ripping away from itself!)

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, you people take everything literally. You know what I meant by the statement nothing can travel at the speed of light. Yea, the site you provided me was one of the first sites I encountered. I want better. Neutrinos travel just below or at the speed of light. Neutrinos have a rest mass. They are also able to come close to traveling at the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light

I want more indepth sources. Google do not provide definite sources. So, I want you to scope out the ones that you think are good and post them. I have no reason to believe in the current theories, if they aren't even logical. Mathematics is just a manifestation of logic. If the logic that lead to the math was illogical, then that math itself is illogical. Logic is the only thing that matters. The current theories do not practice logic.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

I say that there is no pushing and merely pulling in the opposite direction!

Prove me wrong. Ya, that's what I thought.

Oh wait, we're both wrong. Consider an electron between an electron and a proton. The center electron is being pushed by the other electron and pulled by the proton.

lol...thats a good point. The universe is just such a weird and crazy place. Technically don't know anything.

 

[Arctic Fox]

My 2 cents...

I want to get to the number 4. Einstein says the only way to get there is 1+1+1+1. You can’t go faster than that.

I’m looking at my own theories that say I can get there using 2*2. :)

Same destination, different/faster equasion.

 

[Alkatran]

Wow, you people take everything literally. You know what I meant by the statement nothing can travel at the speed of light. Yea, the site you provided me was one of the first sites I encountered. I want better. Neutrinos travel just below or at the speed of light. Neutrinos have a rest mass. They are also able to come close to traveling at the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light

I want more indepth sources. Google do not provide definite sources. So, I want you to scope out the ones that you think are good and post them. I have no reason to believe in the current theories, if they aren't even logical. Mathematics is just a manifestation of logic. If the logic that lead to the math was illogical, then that math itself is illogical. Logic is the only thing that matters. The current theories do not practice logic.

Anything I give you won't be enough. It will either be too complicated to understand (so you'll dismiss it) or too simple (so you'll dismiss it).

 

[Alkatran]

My 2 cents...

I want to get to the number 4. Einstein says the ony way to get there is either 1+1+1+1.

I’m looking at my own theories that say I can get there using 2*2. :)

Same destination, different/faster equasion.

Yes, but you need to break down 2*2. Think, what did you actually do in your head to calculate it? You memorized it. Any calculation can take almost 0 time if you memorize it. To really calculate 2*2 you need to:

* is a series of +, so 2*2 is +2 twice
2+2
+ and - are series of numbers
a number is a series of increments (+1)
+1+1 + +1+1
++=+
+1+1+1+1
there, we broke it down all the way
4

2*2 = 2+2 = +1+1+1+1

Now, why was 2*2 faster, again?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

artic fox said the equation is shortened. if u know that adding 1+1+1+1 is the same as 2 doubled.. then that is indeed a short cut. if u have good understanding u can cut out the middle-man and just get straight to the answer. memorized or not. alkatran, i don't care how hard or easy ur sources are. I WANNA SEE THEM! i give u guys my sources all the time and i don't mind if u shoot them down.. so the least thing u can do is give the ppl on this thread the same respect and just let us see ur sources...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

WHOA! look what i found! http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae476.cfm
wow ppl. are thinking a like.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Yea, there is no push or pull. In order to provide more of a reality, I used push to emphasize my theory. What is really going on is emission and absorption.


P=Proton E=Electron \leftarrow or \rightarrow = energy emitted or absorbed

A proton can be denoted by \rightarrow P \leftarrow it absorbs.
An electron can be denoted by \leftarrow E \rightarrow it emitts energy.

That is not how it works, but that's what we will use. Density is the determing factor on what emitts or absorbs energy. Thats in quantum physics?

So, what you have is:

P \leftarrow \rightarrow P \leftarrow \leftarrow E \rightarrow \leftarrow E

So, what happens?

P \leftarrow \rightarrow PE \rightarrow \rightarrow \leftarrow \leftarrow E

The outer E continues to push the E in the PE pair as it progresses towards the pair.

P \leftarrow \lefttarrow EP \leftarrow \leftarrowarrow \leftarrow \leftarrow E

The E in the PE pair orbits the PE and is being pushed by the other E allowing the E in the PE pair to pair up with the other P and the other E to pair up with the PEP pair. To get:

\rightarrow PEPE \rightarrow

This is just the jist. There is more going on. Point I'm trying to make is that everything is governed by emission and absorption which makes a pushing force.

I don't know if this is a good example. OH WELL!

 

[beatrix kiddo]

and just so we're all clear:
urtalkinstupid isn't 15. i am. he never said anything about age. i did (after terrabyte got my age wrong) urtalkinstupid is 16.. about to be 17. i am 15 about to be 16. and what's so bad about being 15?? it's reasonable considering I'm going in the 11th grade...

 

[urtalkinstupid]

solving for p

Your equation is wrong.

Here's why:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = 0

Now, I'll start from your end equation and work backwards:
P^2 = E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) - 1
(m^2*c^4+c^2)(P^2+1) = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2 = 0
Now they both = 0, so:
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2

eliminate everything on the left from the right

m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 + m^2*c^4*P^2 + c^2*P^2

0 = m^2*c^4*p^2+c^2*p^2
Divide by c^2*p^2

0 = m^2*c^2 + 1
m^2*c^2 = -1
(mc)^2 = -1
mc = sqr(-1)
mc = i

The speed of light times the object's mass is imaginary. That is why you're equation doesn't work.

Since you're so good at math, can you solve for p the correct way? I told you that I already thought mine was wrong, so I was wanting help.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, 9.81m/s^2 is acceleration...

just so u know entropy, stupid was saying that alkatran could tell his beloved einstein that the equation was wrong.. he wasn't meaning the acceleration of gravity... and since, alkatran, u think this equation is wrong, what is ur opinion on SR, since that comes from it? E=mc^2... i guess that's wrong too...

 

[urtalkinstupid]

beatrix kiddo (is not a girl, but is a boy), he was saying that the method i used to solve for p is wrong not the total energy equation. hehehe

 

[beatrix kiddo]

oh ok.. nvm then.. sry alkatran.. i misread ur post... I CAN BE WRONG TOO YA KNOW!

 

[beatrix kiddo]

hey when i solved for p i got this:
p^2=E^2-mo^2c^4/c^2.. it's prob not right because it makes the answer imaginary (?)

 

[Alkatran]

Since you're so good at math, can you solve for p the correct way? I told you that I already thought mine was wrong, so I was wanting help.

E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
sqr((E^2 - m^2*c^4)/c^2) = p

You have to by level, move the addition, then the multiplication, then the square. Pretty basic algebra.

 

[Alkatran]

just so u know entropy, stupid was saying that alkatran could tell his beloved einstein that the equation was wrong.. he wasn't meaning the acceleration of gravity... and since, alkatran, u think this equation is wrong, what is ur opinion on SR, since that comes from it? E=mc^2... i guess that's wrong too...

If the equation is incorrect either it was found incorrectly or the base equation is also wrong.

In this case it was found incorrectly.

*edit* oh, you were told that by urtalking anyways.