It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Any one have any idea? g = s x v²

page: 3
5
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:05 PM

Not me. Wolfram Alpha.

But I can generate a vaild physical equation out of this.

With x haveing the unit s^3 / (kg*m) you could write x as time / force
x = t / F ?

But t / F doesn't makes much sense however dt / dF would make sense.

x = dt/ dF

So place it into the equation:

g = S * dt/dF * v^2

and solve for F (Force):

F = Integral S(t)*v(t)^2 / g(t) * dt

here the units add up and this therefore is a valid candidate for a physical equation.

p.s. note S is position depend and on a movement that is time depend S become time depend thats why I write S(t). The same with g.

p.s.2. of course S = solar constant, g = gravity, v = velocity as given by the other thread. But don't ask me about the sense of that F !

Remarkable with a constant velocity you can generate an ever growing Force with this formula.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by g210b]

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:56 PM

Not for being too serious about but keeping the mind ticking over.

Look at the replies.Bringing intelligent discussion aside of the original.

Yes other kind of replies as well but they as in any other thread can be ignored.

[edit on 19/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:56 PM

Originally posted by masonwatcher

You are just stating a basic algebra equation without the convention of a, b, c.

that is the first thought that came to my mind too... again i'm not tryin to beef with anybody and i understand that it is an intellectual excercise but...

isn't it just something that is MADE UP? by a delusional cult leader? why am i the only ATS member that thinks there is no solution to this.

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:19 PM
Dude's a fool. Check out my response.

His formula doesn't work.

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:58 PM

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by dannyfal
isn't it just something that is MADE UP?

most likely yes.

dunno don't know that man.

why am i the only ATS member that thinks there is no solution to this.

You are for sure not the only one. The most will think that and this includes me.

But see one thing it is not proven to be made up before you have ever spend some thoughts into the subject and it is a fun and challenging thing to spend some thoughts in impossiblenesses. At least I like that.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by g210b]

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 05:07 PM

isn't it just something that is MADE UP? by a delusional cult leader?

Yes. I think he was running a blog.

why am i the only ATS member that thinks there is no solution to this.

I personally don't believe his story, but the formula is interesting for me.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by Spinotoror]

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 05:33 PM

Any one have any idea? g = s x v²

After having scanned this entire thread, although there seemed to be a few posts by members who actually do know some basic physics, I was pretty suprised to see knobody pointed out the following obviously similar eqn -

Source : Wikipedia

All the OP really did here was replace m/2 with S, and replace E-sub-k with g.

Why ?

Well, he got my attention as well as everybody elses ...

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 05:39 PM
It's the same exact equation as E=mc², except E is g, s is m, and c is v.
Same exact equation with different variables...

Edit: now it seems he's not referring to the "x" as a multiplying sign. He just made this post:

you are assuming x as a multiply factor. I would have put this sign “.” Instead of the “x” You don’t read my posts: it’s about strings connection with holographic laws. It’s more astronomical than physics.

So I don't even think this equation can be confirmed if what he just said is true.

[edit on 6/19/2009 by bl4ke360]

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 08:11 PM

I am no expert by any measure but I have dibble dabbled in a number of subjects for fun; with a couple assumptions I thought it may have something to do with string theory and motion through space.

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:38 PM
It does not make sense. Just looking at the units, the constant has nothing to do with what he claims.

g=Sxv^2

Looking at the units, ignoring magnitude of the variables, one can determine what units S is.

m=meters, s=seconds
acceleration, g, is measured as m/s^2
velocity, v, is measured as m/s .: v^2=m^2/s^2

so S=g/v^2
.: S's units=(m/s^2)/(m^2/s^2)=1/m

So basically the sun constant, S, is supposed to be the multiplicative inverse of distance.

"where S is the Sun Constant, which gives spaceships its “fuel” as the energy any planet receives for every cm² each second from the nearest star, depending on the planet angle from the Sun and, consequently, its AU"

[edit on 19-6-2009 by Nomnoms]

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:24 PM

Thank you. I will quote it and paste it on his thread.

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:23 PM
Umm i have no idea what g is? Could you have possibly misinterpretted a letter of the greek alphabet?

But in mechanics "V" stands for velocity and "S" stands for displacement (distance from origin).

so

The Unknown G = Velocity squared x Displacement which can actually be written SV^2

G= Gravity? Something to do with space? How large the force of gravity is when an object reaches a certain velocity? or has travelled a certain distance?

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:16 PM
Tell him this...

If S is a constant then your saying that distance is what is relative in our perceptions, and not velocity.

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:06 PM

Its kind of fizzled out know the wanting to know upon another thread.
Well actually its a case of the outed out now.

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:57 PM

I don't know if any of you have seen this video, but it ties in some of what you have brought forth here, in regards to leaving the "spaceship" in place and bending time space around it. If someone has this linked already, my apologies, but if not, it could answer some of the questions. (unless everyone here is a naysayer stuck in conventional wisdom)

It is a little long, but well worth the time, not only for this thread, but anyone thinking outside the preverbial box that we have been spoon fed.

Still learning how to insert goodies, so please be patient with me if this video does't show up.

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
For the respected minds of those on this board.

There is a thread I have been following for quite awhile,not for belief but amusement.

I have my views of certain things and they certainly do not go along with anything put
by commander fruit loop.

This formula was presented: g = s x v²

Can any one within this board enlighten on this?

[edit on 18/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

I think that the equation tells us about time.

g = time/second

The equation g = s · v² really means g = s,s

In other words (g) is mass or a object = second, second

Where g = s

You cant have time or changes without (g).

Edit:
g = s ?

Geometric figure: a line

Properties:
g-intercept = 0
s-intercept = 0
slope = 1

solution to variable s is: s = g

Time = matter

Edit:

The equation g = s (v v ):

[g = s,v^2] where g = s and v^2 = Plot[v^2, [v, -1.2, 1.2]] on a graf.

v^2 = ([v^2]/.g)

[v^2|g = s] = 0 when [v,g,s] = [0,33/10,33/10]

[0,33/10,33/10] = 0+33/10+33/10 = 6.6 which are Spherical coordinates (radial, polar, azimuthal): r = 4,6669, θ = 45°, φ = 90°

This is a sphere at its very birth in time because the variable (s) or (g) cant be 0. Because s = g.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

new topics

top topics

5