What Is the Rocket Equation From a Non-Mathematician's Viewpoint?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a proposed "rocket equation" that suggests a relationship between energy, mass, and the speed of light, specifically stating that energy equals the cube root of mass multiplied by five times the speed of light. The author, who identifies as more artistic than mathematical, expresses a vision of the universe that incorporates multiple dimensions and parallel universes, arguing that understanding these dimensions is essential for defining our current physical universe. They introduce concepts like the Ideal Past, Present, and Ideal Future, suggesting that these dimensions are interconnected and influence one another. Critics in the thread dismiss the proposal as nonsensical and lacking scientific rigor, leading to a heated exchange about the validity of non-mathematical perspectives in scientific discourse. The conversation highlights a clash between imaginative speculation and traditional scientific reasoning, with some participants advocating for the inclusion of broader perspectives in understanding complex concepts.
artrocket
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Hi. I'm curious how the science folks here would see this 'rocket equation' I formulated:

Energy (E) = the cube root of mass (m) multiplied by 5 times the speed of light (C).

I'm not a mathematician, I'm more into art. It was borne out from my visualization of the universe (an ideal future) as I perceived it. They kept looking for the fictitious graviton but they won't and never will, find it. I'm proposing this equation instead. :-p

I will try to share what this is about, in a language I can express, with the science folks here as the thread progresses.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
artrocket said:
I'm not a mathematician,

That is quite evident. Stop posting gibberish and nonsense.
Post reported.
 
There's still more. I perceive that to define our existing universe (E=mc^2), there is the need to incorporate 3 more dimensional, parallel universes. But these must be perceived from the viewpoint within the Singularity, where past present and future gets blurred. The Omega Point Theory only identified one facet of the universe, I am identifying 4 that interlinks one with another, and to perceive these other three parts are necessary to define one part (our Present existing physical universe).

The rocket equation is borne as the third dimensional perspective, to be known as our Ideal Future that we are about to enter.

The second is our Present universe, the first is our Ideal Past universe, wherein it incorporated our classics, myths, legends, glories that we put into our memory. The Ideal Past is like a pattern that is parallel with the Ideal Future; both are centripetal, implosive in nature. Being a pattern, the boundary of Ideal Past is E=square root of mass times twice lightspeed, which constitutes the rest mass of the Present E=mc^2. Of course, these patterns, as the Ideal Past is necessary to create our Present, are necessary to create the latter, which is expansive, centrifugal in nature.

The rocket equation is summed up as the cube root rest mass boundaries of 3 dimensions (Ideal Past, Present, Ideal Future) + twice the speed of light, incorporatting the pattern boundaries even of Ideal Future, because it is centripetal and implosive in nature too.

The rocket equation will be the pattern for the 4th dimensional perspective, the Future-Present, which is like a mirror to our Present, and it is centrifugal, expansive in nature. The equation for Future-Present will be E=mc^3, wherein the rocket equation is included with rest mass pattern boundaries of Ideal Future and Ideal Past, plus the relativistic speed of light, thus assigning the value c^3.

The Future-Present, similarly as the Present, being centrifugal, expansive dimensions, are like catalysts for the expansion of our Universe.
 
Last edited:
arildno said:
That is quite evident. Stop posting gibberish and nonsense.
Post reported.

Your abrupt criticism is an absolute nonsense. What made you think only mathematicians monopolize TRUTH?? your mode of perspective is obsolete and gibberish.
 
Last edited:
Mere masturbation fantasies of the ignoramus do not count as science.

Nor, I would add, should it count as art.
 
arildno said:
Mere masturbation fantasies of the ignoramus do not count as science.

Nor, I would add, should it count as art.

That is your highly subjective perspective deprived of any imaginative capacity, which is far from scientific, but borne out from the arrogance of your ignorance to the profoundness far greater than your technical paradigms.
 
Last edited:
Random speculation and flaming... this thread is done.
 

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
46
Views
49K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Back
Top