This conversation is closed.

CHALLENGE Could 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 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...


  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: To stop government corruption and stop government lies.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: My idea is from my other discussion I'm trying to start, but here it goes. Here's how I think we can change our society and solve ALL our problems in the long run. We need to teach the kids and young generation to a) be curious and to b) make sure you show them that you care about them. You need to somehow show them that you care about what they think, what they say, what they feel. And then you need to communicate to them that you appreciate who they are and that you are accepted in society for who you are.
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: I'd think most people agree with this idea of child-rearing, except that most people would say kids don't need to be taught to be curious. They are born that way.
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: Yeah you're right. Ok what I really meant was we should help guide them to be who they are, which we would like to believe is being curious.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: I think this belief about child-rearing and education is also not controversial.
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: Yeah, I think it's becoming less controversial as more and more people are understanding that this is the source of a lot of problems.
  • Jul 22 2012: Time only looks at to points... The equation may have as many factors but only two points of concern beginning and end that middle part is a length. So my judgment states that time would equal distance and the distances would vary upon the material provided. Time in the equation is distinguished by degrees this allows the equation to be universal.

    In regards rate of motion it would have to be 20 degrees/ size of equator. This allows us to calculate the inert distance traveled by the earth and remove that as a variable if we were conducting an experiment. Or wanting to reproduce the conditions on a higher altitude because 20degrees distance @ 10 feet is going to be more than 20 degrees distance at 5 because the circumference of equator at each lever are different.

    The equation is in its infancy but can be built upon with by the right individuals. As for the constant, with this equation there is no constant and this states that ENERGY=MASS which requires us to look at his point of reference.

    Kinetic energy is what I keep finding but it is more than that because everything has a different potential energy depending upon the type. Potential energy is what we are able to harness that is all because we are all riding the same trains so to speak.

    If we could throw mama from the train then and have a person standing to catch her then watch out the energy from that....

    I am saying the equations we were taught ALL require constants and the only true constant we have is change. If an equation is not able to calculate for change then we should reevaluate it because nothing is constant except change.

    I completely understand what the equation did is place a description to mass. LIKE the Sky is Blue.

    Time is the calculation for change; in the root form it is 2D in the proposed form it is 3D and able to calculate variables. It removes velocity changes acceleration and requires force to be update to account for kinetic and potential. Then others may need to be updated too
  • 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.

      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.