This is a short post, just to show something simple and beautiful.

Consider the earth surface with the mass m, being heated by the sun with radiation at the speed c while at the same time emitting radiation at the speed c:

E=mc^2.

Now, if I take the speed of light in km/s instead of m/s and divide by TSI/(4/3)^2 I get the emissive power of the surface. I discovered this a long time ago, but I am still working on what the cause could be for using km/s instead of m/s. Probably it has something to do with decceleration of light speed inside the atmosphere, but it is not clear to me how that would work. Are our units maybe wrong? Should Watts have three more zeros? Should the lightspeed have three less? Is lightspeed really a measure of speed? Or is it a measure of radial acceleration?

I have been thinking for a long time that we need to take Einsteins equation seriously. We need to accept that we are standing on a ball hurling through space at lightspeed, along with everything around us. I have a vague idea about heat being the product of newtonian force and counterforce, relative differences in speed. Relativity.

Heat may be the result of expansion meeting the resistance of space. But, that might imply that the sun doesn´t produce its radiation from self-induced fission and fusion, they are a product of friction. I have a strong feeling that we are not observing any causes, everything we see is an effect. Electricity makes more and more sense.

Except none of the equations you are creating actually have any other applications within physics. They are just some coincidental connections. For starters, if you were properly using constants and formulas for your correlations than the units would come out to correspond to your correlation as well.

GillaGilla

You make a fundamental mistake in reading Einsteins formula.

E is in that formula NOT the internal energy of matter, that determines the temperature and so the radiation of energy.

E is here the energy set free by the conversion of mass to energy. One He atom is lighter than the summed up mass of the two H atoms it is made of due to fusion. The energy produced while mass is reduced is E. And this E even is there when matter is at 0K.

Thus E of E=mc^2 is not related to the energy radiated according to SB-law by bodies.

You’re mixing up things. Read Einstein first.

GillaGilla

You are making a lot of assumptions which is not included in that formula. It says that mass multiplicated with squared light speed has the energy E. Nothing else. And I didn´t even write anything about temperature and the sb-law. Stop making assumptions, that´s how you got in the mess of the greenhouse-sect.

What I wrote about dividing light speed with surface temperature or TSI/(4/3)^2 is just a peculiar coincidence, and might be not be anything else than that. My calculations are filled with peculiar coincidences, so excuse me if I disregard your comment as totally unimportant and follow my intuition instead. Maybe you should try ”shut up and calculate”, I did, and it was very rewarding.

GillaGilla

So speed has the units distance/ time. You used km/s so lets go with that. You divided km/s by w/m^2. You arrived asst a number similar to your miscalculated surface temp. In order for their to be any connection or explanation between your equation and reality, the units would need to match up. This case, the units for surface temp are K. So what did your equation end up with for units? (KmW)/(m^2s)

Let’s see if we unpack the ways into their basic units of things cancel out and get any clearer. W=j/s j=Nm (maybe should have sick with the m instead of kilometer, then they could have been combined into km^2, not site that will help but let’s see.

In the most basic of units you have ended up with mNKm/m^2s^2. So i notice then that had we stuck with m instead of Km we could combine on top and the m^2 on bottom would cancel. So let’s try that, even though the number is off by a factor of 1000.

N/s^2. Not site what that is but it is definitely not K.

GillaGilla

As I already wrote, is just one peculiar correlation which I want look closer at. Since heat has the speed c, it is not illogical to find a connection.

It is not hard to come up with reasons why light would slow down when it enters a system with mass. And the speed can easily be imagined to turn into force, which I do with TSI in TSI/(4/3)=4/3*8g^2

GillaGilla

This is basic high school level physics but worth repeating. The number g that yippy keep throwing around in these formulas IS NOTa force. It is an acceleration. 9.81 meters per second squared, at the surface of the earth, less when tyou are further from the center of mass. Now if were have a second mass we can calculate gravity force on it using force=mass×acceleration. So a 1kg mass has a force of 9.8N on it at the surface. And if i hold the mass 1 meter off the ground and let go, gravity will do 9.8Nm of work, or 9.8 joules, as it pulls the mass to the surface. Because it would take approx .5 seconds for the mass to fall, this would equate to 9.8j/.5s=19.8Watts of power.

And now that the block is sitting on the ground, gravity is still applying a force on the mass and tyre ground is applying an equivalent force against gravity. Since the object isn’t moving no work is being done by either force.

GillaGilla