0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

And still my values give the true answer and current values give the wrong answer

Why do you say for something obvious it is not true?F=GMm/r^2 , at r=zero or at the centre of earth, according to current view , the limit of r as r approaches zero is infinity , however in the centre of earth F=0 and the truth is only obtained by my definition.

Incidentally, the inverse square law only works for "large" distances. Sufficiently large that teh object can be considered as a point.

gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero...It is simple, there are equal forces on the object from all directions,And still my values give the true answer and current values give the wrong answer

The relativistic mass of a photon is undefined , it equals 0/0: m=m0/(1- v²/c²), m0=0, v=cBut according to my definition 0/0=0, and that is exactly the definition of relativistic mass of a photon, it is always zero.

√- x when x is positive can't be done

my values satisfy five equations in physics

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 25/08/2019 07:46:14The relativistic mass of photon is undefined , it equals 0/0: m=m0/(1- v²/c²), m0=0, v=cBut according to my definition 0/0=0, and that is exactly the definition of relativistic mass of a photon, it is always zero.Perhaps you are thinking of E=mc^{2} ?

The relativistic mass of photon is undefined , it equals 0/0: m=m0/(1- v²/c²), m0=0, v=cBut according to my definition 0/0=0, and that is exactly the definition of relativistic mass of a photon, it is always zero.

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 25/08/2019 07:46:14 my values satisfy five equations in physicsYou really need to tell us what these 5 mysterious and significant equations are!For all we know they could be:1) 1=12) 2=23) 3=34) 4=45) 5=5

Incidentally, the inverse square law only works for "large" distances. Sufficiently large that teh object can be considered as a point.You missed something which is r is measured from centre to centre, in this case an object center will be exactly at earth's centre, which the same as saying r=0

, its mass doesn't increase " relativistic mass" and I proved that,

It appears that if we have 3 are apples , then the other three apples will equal 9 apples , 3 apples for each of them, and this is wrong.

Forget about the terminology non-division, dividing that has no answer is different from not dividing

dividing with no answer is like this 4/0=undefined or no answer.

Not dividing is like this:some operation but not division=something

4/0=no answer I say there is an answer which is zero.

And I presented proof for that.

Everywhere.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165526/if-the-gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero-why-are-heavy-elements-like-iIt is simple, there are equal forces on the object from all directions,And still my values give the true answer and current values give the wrong answer

F=GMm/r^2 , at r=zero or at the centre of earth, according to current view , the limit of r as r approaches zero is infinity , however in the centre of earth F=0 and the truth is only obtained by my definition.

relativistic mass of a photon is undefined , it equals 0/0: m=m0/(1- v²/c²), m0=0, v=cBut according to my definition 0/0=0, and that is exactly the definition of relativistic mass of a photon, it is always zero.

velocity at the origin=0/0 "x=0 , t=0 "=undefined but it actually has a value which is 0/0=0, and that is exactly the velocity of an object at stationary.

According to what Newton suggested if we assume infinity is a number then at infinity , force F=0, according to my definition, I exactly did what Newton suggested , F=GMm/r^2=GMm/∞=0

the same logic of Newton , if we assume v=c , the kinetic energy of mass equals its contained energy, just like a photon's moving at the speed of light has kinetic energy equals its contained energy.Relativistic kinetic energy:K.E=mc²/√(1-v²/c²)-mc²At the speed v=c for a mass, the expression √(1-v²/c²) will equal zero:K.E=mc²/0 - mc² , K.E = 0-mc²K.E=-mc²But energy of mass m equals:E=mc² K.E=-E

So why do you say for something obvious not true ? if you do that then the discussion is meaningless, and it is just time wasting.

You really need to tell us what these 5 mysterious and significant equations are!1) 1=12) 2=23) 3=34) 4=45) 5=5

I exactly did what Newton suggested

By the same logic of Newton , if we assume v=c , the kinetic energy of mass equals its contained energy, just like a photon's moving at the speed of light has kinetic energy equals its contained energy.Relativistic kinetic energy:K.E=mc²/√(1-v²/c²)-mc²At the speed v=c for a mass, the expression √(1-v²/c²) will equal zero:K.E=mc²/0 - mc² , K.E = 0-mc²K.E=-mc²But energy of mass m equals:E=mc² K.E=-E

It's crazy. It's stupid. It's wrong.

discovering a new theory is hard

It is wrong

but It is not stupid

my threads and posts are deep

I bet if you try so you will post garbage

you are not even able to do it,

you do not and never have new ideas in your mind,.

It is wrong but It is not stupid,

The relativistic mass of a photon is undefined , it equals 0/0: m=m0/(1- v²/c²), m0=0, v=cThat makes perfect sense.The relativistic mass of a photon depends on the energy.So it does not have a defined value in terms of v and c because they do not define the energy of a photon.

At the very best, you are wrong because KE- 1/2 mv^2