| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Math - Symbolic Forum » New Energy Formula
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mehran Basti |
 Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mehran Basti |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
That was sci physics (not relativity).
I have been working with Riccati equations since about a quarter of a century.
I found the articles of Osher Doctorow interesting.
In fact I had selected Riccati equations as my lifetime research in 1980 because it had this physics connection.
Look at my statement of research on my new math to see its connection with universals (this is the central philosophical issues in Riccat!).
Dr.Mehran Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:13:24 -0400, Mehran Basti:
Quote: Jim wrote:
`
..which is total nonsense.
Write down the correct relation then come back here.`
E = m c^2 is one of the well-known formulas
No, it's just crap. Write down the right one. You *know* the right one, do
you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mehran Basti |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
OsherD wrote: In sci physics
Quote: From Osher Doctorow
It is rather obvious that E = mc^2 approaches positive infinity as c --
infinity, assuming that the previous postings are correct.
This says that the black hole has infinite energy, "at the
singularity".
The next question is, what does a black hole actually do in the
Universe if its main "activity" is increasing light speed and energy
to infinity?
Osher Doctorow
Dear Newsgroup:
I would like to point a note about a posting in sci.physics here.
I would say from purely mathematical point of view, black holes might be occurring at singular points of some corresponding Riccati differential equations.
That means when the universe is calculating its balance with respect to infelicity many Riccati equations in its simultaneous operations.
See my Math –chart diagram on my new math.
Dr.Mehran Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| pnachtwey |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 10:41 am, Mehran Basti <Basti...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: "Mehran Basti" <Basti...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:14133955.1208981099987.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.
mathforum.org...
Dear news group:
I have already answered the question in
sci.relativity.
There is no such use group. You have had your chance
to provide the units
for X and g(t) and you didn't. You failed.
Peter Nachtwey
That was sci. physics. Relativity newsgroup.
You had another chance and you failed. Don't send me on another wild
goose chase. This should be simple if you are right. It is easy to
that E=m*c^2 has units of energy. If
dx/dt+x^2=g(t) is an energy formula then the units can't be anything.
The units must be in terms of energy and the rate of change in energy
is power. So what are the units for x and g(t)?. The fact that you
can't make the units consistent with energy units should be a clue
that you are wrong.
Peter Nachtwey |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:44 am |
|
|
|
|
pnachtwey wrote:
Quote: This should be simple if you are right. It is easy to
that E=m*c^2 has units of energy. If
dx/dt+x^2=g(t) is an energy formula then the units can't be anything.
The units must be in terms of energy and the rate of change in energy
is power. So what are the units for x and g(t)?. The fact that you
can't make the units consistent with energy units should be a clue
that you are wrong.
Peter Nachtwey
Dear Newsgroup:
There is no other way, until they see my lecture notes, and they
engage at least 5 years of research on this topic, in order to fully
understand the issue (but tell to your friends that dominating academy
will have severe consequences).
Look at my article on FLT on sci.math, to see the behavioral attitude
of the math community.
Yes, E = m c^2 has units of energy formulas. But that is in physics
domain.
I have mentioned that my formula is an abstract mathematical one for
the entire operations in the universe, in particular energy (as I had
mentioned its relation to PDE).
I had selected it since I have a lot of commutations done on this
domain with Riccati.
So, if you are looking at my formula thinking the energy units are
there, this is not so.
But if you ask me what is the sole mathematical single formula behind
sun (one of the main energies of our galaxy), I say it is Riccati.
If my statement bothers you, I cannot help it.
This is my position; you can explain your side of story once my
lecture notes are there.
You wrote:
“dx/dt+x^2=g(t) is an energy formula then the units can't be anything.
The units must be in terms of energy and the rate of change in energy
is power. So what are the units for x and g(t)?. The fact that you
can't make the units consistent with energy units should be a clue
that you are wrong.”
This is my theory from mathematical point of view (not physics).
Yes, my abstract formula also represents the energy (despite the fact
that the units are not explicitly energy related).
This could even be infinitely many Riccati equations, in variety of
operations of transformations of sun.
Let say in order to transform energy, the sun use in its mathematical
operations the following:
1-varaity of polynomial equations (linear or non-linear).
2-variety of differential equations (linear or non-linear)
3-Integrals
As you have noted on my Math-Chart diagram, they are all condensed in
Riccati.
Thus I can say, the sun is communicating with Riccati to transform its
energy, this is an abstract mathematical explanation.
You see, no direct energy related units are there, may be infinitely
many Riccati equations involved in its transformation.
Like it or not.
I have no more explanation, but to say the sole abstract formula for
the universe is as simple and beautiful as Riccati (this includes
energy):
dx/dt +x^2 =g(t)
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mehran Basti |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Newsgroup:
I see many articles of Osher Doctorow on sci physics (and sometimes on sci. physics relativity) about Riccati equations (as well as old articles).
He has recently posted an article about special relativity versus Riccati equations (in sci physics).
These types of comparison are interesting from My NEW ENERGY FORMULA point of view.
Once you get to know my lecture notes, you will be entered into a new world of commutations (as vast as the universe itself!).
You need to eventually gain personal experiences about this new world, and my explanations will not be sufficient unless you have engaged in this research for many years (may be 5 at least).
This is because you need to search for new avenues and confirm my convergence formula on Riccati.
I am sure you will confirm my key formula for the universe as well as energy.
So, we will be eventually going to compare the physics formula of energy
E = m c^2
With the purely abstract mathematical one i.e.Riccati
dx/dt + x^2 = g(t)
Naturally similar questions as Osher Doctorow raised, will be surfaced into the domain of our debate.
Whether totally different and new experimentations will be necessary for special relativity, remains open.
So, do not get too uncomfortable about my scientific inquires, since we need to answer questions as they happen in the world of science (the new Math is a science since it has all the general characteristics of any science as Henry Poincare noted).
Dr.M.Basti |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:21 am
|
|