TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

CHALLENGE Could TED.com Community spread a new IDEA that is accepted world wide and what should it be...

Be as creative and open as you want I only want to help create the Better tomorrow..

This Idea came to me today because I have been trying to get people to look at and challenge a simple equation I found or connected. It has been verified as another way to calculate time.

People kept asking what am I trying to get across. I still do not know but I would not have made it this far if it was not for the support of the excellent individuals that looked past the poor video quality and the second guessing nature and it is my turn to help others.

My equation states that TIME=DISTANCE This removes light from the equation literally when I plugged this into E=MC^2 or E=MD^2/T^2
http://youtu.be/4oDmeSenNic 5mins

The C^2 becomes a one and E=M this is not totally correct. That would be the idea I want the world to accept.

If we want to progress society we have to fix our math...



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 22 2012: Two vehicles are at an intersection driving in the same direction. As they depart, one drives at 20 miles per hour and the other 40.
    In one hour we look at the distance the cars have traveled. We would normally say that Distance equals the Rate they traveled times the Time they were in motion. Does distance equal time, then, or does the rate of motion matter?
    In your modification of Einstein's equation, this variation in rate is not the issue, because the speed of light is a constant. When you say energy and mass are equal, is this precisely what you mean, or are you saying they are directly proportional? For example, one foot does equal twelve inches, always. Would you call the foot and the inch equivalent (or equal) because one translates precisely to the other via a constant?
    • Jul 22 2012: I have yet to crack the nut of E=M but am required to evaluate the validity of the standard equations provided to attain this answer.

      The limited math I did receive I remember there are usually many ways of attaining the same answer and this will hold true until we find out the answers that our world has to offer then we must move on... ANYWAYS....

      If I just take it as E=M then yes energy = mass but we cannot remove momentum so we only have access to its potential energy and the varying forms it has. Temperature radiation electric all varied dependent on the material. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html

      The conversion is much like construction i have a 12 foot gap and I need to fill it with 12 foot material. If the material is not there the energy will ca lapse the structure. I am not saying we energy will collapse on itself but it will continue until it hits opposing energy or mass equivalent. Foot is a Foot.
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2012: Time laps is inversely proportional to the scale of the mass.

        ∞ = 1
        • Jul 24 2012: Yes.

          The point I am trying to make is everything needs to be updated. Velocity was a description for variation of time because we did not have the proper equation.

          This is my opinion which needs further research from an expert in the appropriate field but as soon as you state to an expert that the math is wrong especially at the foundation everyone runs and politely states this is not my specialty and do not have the time.

          I am speaking with a animation production studio to develop some animations that assist in explaining the importance of the equation and what we can learn form it.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: I think, Joshua, that you misread the reaction to your work. You can choose to believe that people are running from your work behind the claim that this is not your specialty.
          But another interpretation is that people who do know a thing or two about such mathematics or science are trying to understand what the case is that you are making. Your work doesn't seem conceptually complex and certainly is simple mathematically. It just isn't clear, I think, what you are trying to convey other than the fact that you believe your finding to be very important.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.