Can you grade the calculations I just presented?

My name is Silvio Sponza, and I dabble in amateur mathematics and astronomy—though I primarily write about math problems that I have personally successfully solved.

So, I’m starting a poll to get your take on the calculations I’ve presented here:

Regarding orbital acceleration at Perihelion

Independent of velocity—regardless of how fast Oumuamua was moving before entering the Solar system, or the speed of the sun—for certain masses, acceleration remains constant for a given distance between them. Since, at Perihelion, the velocity due to the radius of curvature is equal to the circular velocity for that radius:

v = 2 * π * r / T

then the derivative of the circular velocity with respect to T is:

a = -2 * π * r / ( T ^ 2 )

where, according to my video at the 9 minute 13 second mark—which I tucked into the "entertainment" category since it hasn't been formally reviewed—link , the expression is:

T ^ 2 = ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( M + m ) * ln( 2 * e ) ) .

Substituting the period back into the previous expression yields:

a = -2 * π * r / ( ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( r ^ 3 ) / ( M * ln( 2 * e ) ) ) =
-2 * π * ln( 2 * e ) * M / ( ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( r ^ 2 ) )

From this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumuamua
The Perihelion Oumuamua-e is 0.25534 * AU = 0.25534 * 149597870700 * m,
and the system mass is 1.9854... * ( 10 ^ 30 ) * kg. Plugging those values into the equation:

-2 * 3.141592654... * ln( 2 * 2.718281828... ) * ( m ^ 3 ) ( s ^ -2 ) * ( kg ^ -1 ) * ( 1.9854... * ( 10 ^ 30 ) * kg ) /
( ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( ( 0.25534... * 149597870700 * m ) ^ 2 ) ) =

-0.014475516 * m / ( s ^ 2 )

However, from that same link, the velocity of Oumuamua-e on 9 August 2017 at 1 * AU was 49670 * m / s, while on 9 September 2017 at Perihelion, its velocity was 87710 * m / s. Given the time difference of 31 days (31 * 24 * 60 * 60 * s), the orbital acceleration at Perihelion is:

a = ( v1 - v2 ) / ( t1 - t2 ) =

( 49670 * m / s - 87710 * m / s ) / ( 31 * 24 * 60 * 60 * s ) =

-0.014202509 * m / ( s ^ 2 )

Is this calculation for Oumuamua correct? To how many decimal places is it off, and how reliable is the data found in these links?

The presentation also calculates that link here:

This is essentially comparing two different calculation methods;

Using this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumuamua
The Perihelion Oumuamua-e distance is 0.25534 * AU = 0.25534 * 149597870700 * m,
and since the system mass is 1.9854... * ( 10 ^ 30 ) * kg, plugging those values into the expression gives us:

a = -2 * π * ln( 2 * e ) * M / ( ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( r ^ 2 ) ) =

-2 * 3.141592654... * ln( 2 * 2.718281828... ) * ( m ^ 3 ) ( s ^ -2 ) * ( kg ^ -1 ) * ( 1.9854... * ( 10 ^ 30 ) * kg ) /

( ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( ( 0.25534... * 149597870700 * m ) ^ 2 ) ) =


-0.014475516 * m / ( s ^ 2 )

Meanwhile, from that same link, the velocity of Oumuamua 9 August 2017 at 1 * AU was 49670 * m / s, and by 9 September 2017 at Perihelion, the velocity of Oumuamua-e reached 87710 * m / s. Given the time difference is 31 d = 31 * 24 * 60 * 60 * s, the orbital acceleration works out to:

a = ( v1 - v2 ) / ( t1 - t2 ) =

( 49670 * m / s - 87710 * m / s ) / ( 31 * 24 * 60 * 60 * s ) =


-0.014202509 * m / ( s ^ 2 )

Is it possible the measurement data from Wikipedia isn't entirely accurate, causing the comparison to only match up to four decimal places?

silverwolf88 said:And the presentation calculates that link too.

The classic third Keplerian expression—now factoring in the gravitational constant.

m = ( ( 2 * π ) ^ 2 ) * ( 10 ^ 11 ) * ( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( T ^ 2 ) * 6.6740831 ) - M =

((2 * π)² * 10¹¹ * (385,006,000 m)³) / ((27.321661 * 86,400 s)² * 6.6740831 m³ s⁻² kg⁻¹) - 5.97237 * 10²⁴ kg

That puts us right at approximately 8.537... × 10²² kg.

I messed up a constant during my presentation in this video—check it out at the 9:40 mark: [link]
I’ve been watching this clip—specifically around the 8:28 mark—and honestly, it's just more of the same. People keep trying to force these complex orbital mechanics into neat little boxes, ignoring the fundamental physics that actually drive the movement. It’s like watching someone try to solve a calculus problem using only basic addition; you can struggle all you want, but the math simply won't support your conclusion. The way they discuss the trajectory—completely ignoring how the solar influence dictates the path—is frustratingly shortsighted. You can't just toss out terms like *vis viva* without understanding the underlying energy exchange. It’s not just about speed; it’s about the relationship between position and momentum within the gravitational well. If you aren't accounting for that, you aren't doing science—you're just making educated guesses.

m = ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( T ^ 2 ) * ln( 2 * e ) ) - M =

( 10^12 ) * ( ( 385000600 * m )^3 ) / ( ( ( 27.321661 * 24 * 60 * 60 * s )^2 ) * ln( 2 * 2.718281828... ) * ( m^3 ) * ( s^-2 ) * ( kg^-1 ) ) - 5.97237 * ( 10^24 ) * kg

7.613... × 10^22 kg

The distance from the center of mass of the Earth to the center of mass of the Moon is 385,000.6 km. Here's the link: [link]
The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is one of those classic pieces of scientific history that people often overlook—it’s essentially the ultimate long-distance measurement test. We aren't just talking about bouncing a laser off a mirror; we're talking about using the moon as a giant reflector to refine our understanding of gravity and orbital mechanics. It’s high-precision physics in action, far beyond any casual backyard observation. If you want to dig into the technical weeds, Wikipedia has the full breakdown of how they actually pull this off.
Here is the data for the 27.321661 * d period—check this link. The Moon—Earth's only natural satellite and our closest celestial neighbor. If you want the deep dive, check out the Wikipedia entry. It covers everything from its formation theories to its tidal influence on our oceans. It’s basically the ultimate cosmic companion.
The Moon's mass is 7.342 × (10^22) kg—here's the link. The Moon—Earth's only natural satellite. If you head over to Wikipedia, you'll find the full breakdown of its orbit, composition, and that whole history of human exploration. It’s basically our closest celestial neighbor, playing a massive role in stabilizing our planet's wobble and driving the tides. From the Apollo missions to modern lunar probes, there's a ton of data out there if you actually care to look.
The mass of the Earth is 5.97237 × (10^24) kg—here's the link. Check out this Wikipedia page on Earth—it’s basically the ultimate deep dive into our home planet.

silverwolf88 said:That’s comparing two different accounts using two entirely different methodologies;

From that link. Check out the Wikipedia page for Oumuamua. It covers everything from its initial detection back on 9 August 2017 to the various theories floating around about what it actually is.
The Perihelion Oumuamua-e sits at 0.25534 AU—which works out to roughly 38,196,150,000 meters.
If that systemic mass equals roughly $1.9854 \times 10^{30}$ kg—then once you plug those values into the equation—

a = -2 * π * ln( 2 * e ) * M / ( ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( r ^ 2 ) ) =

-2 * 3.141592654... * ln( 2 * 2.718281828... ) * ( m^3 ) * ( s^-2 ) * ( kg^-1 ) * ( 1.9854... * ( 10^30 ) * kg ) /

( ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( ( 0.25534... * 149597870700 * m ) ^ 2 ) ) =


-0.014475516 m/s²

If you look at the same data, Oumuamua’s velocity was 49,670 m/s at 1 AU on August 9, 2017—but by the time it hit Perihelion on September 9, 2017, that speed had jumped to 87,710 m/s. Given that there's a 31-day gap between those dates (which is 2,678,400 seconds, for those keeping track), the orbital acceleration would be...

a = ( v1 - v2 ) / ( t1 - t2 ) =

( 49670 * m / s - 87710 * m / s ) / ( 31 * 24 * 60 * 60 * s ) =


-0.014202509 m/s²

Is it actually possible that the measurement data on Wikipedia is inaccurate—to the point where we’re seeing an equality out to four decimal places?

Maybe someone’s wondering how I calculated the mass of the Solar system—it comes out to exactly 1.9854... * ( 10^30 ) * kg.

The mass of the solar system, calculated using the classical third Keplerian expression involving the gravitational constant.

Based on Mercury's required orbital elements. Check out this data dump over at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astronomy_dyn_data.html I can't work with just a single word like that. If you want me to rewrite something, give me the actual text. I'm ready when you are.

M = ( ( 2 * π ) ^ 2 ) * ( 10 ^ 11 ) * ( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( T ^ 2 ) * 6.6740831 ) - m =

It looks like you've provided a fragment of a formula—specifically an expression involving $\pi^2$, powers of ten, and some large physical constants—but the calculation cuts off abruptly after $(87.96886 \times 24$. Without the rest of the denominator or the full context of what this equation is meant to solve (is it a mass calculation? orbital mechanics? something else?), I can't give you a final number. If you're trying to model a specific celestial body or a gravitational interaction, please provide the complete string so I can run the math for you.
( 60 * 60 * s ) ^ 2 ) * 6.6740831 * ( m ^ 3 ) * ( s ^ -2 ) * ( kg ^ -1 ) ) - 3.3011 * ( 10 ^ 23 ) * kg

It equals roughly 1.98847... × 10³⁰ kg.

Regarding that expression—I actually changed the constant during my presentation at the 9:40 mark in this video: [link]

m = ( 10^12 ) * ( ( R + r )^3 ) / ( ( T^2 ) * ln( 2 * e ) ) - M =

( 10^12 ) * ( ( 57908960000 * m )^3 ) / ( ( ( 87.96886 * 24 * 60 * 60 * s )^2 ) * ln( 2 * e ) * ( m^3 ) * ( s^-2 ) * ( kg^-1 ) ) - 3.3011 * ( 10^23 ) * kg

That’s roughly 1.98544... × 10^30 kg.

Here is the link for Mercury's mass. Check out the Wikipedia entry for Mercury. It’s the smallest planet in our solar system—basically the underdog of the neighborhood—and it sits right on the edge of being too close to the sun. Because it's so tucked in there, it's got almost no atmosphere to speak of, just a thin layer of exosphere that barely qualifies. The temperature swings are absolutely wild, though. Since there's no blanket of air to hold onto the heat, you get blistering daytime temperatures followed by freezing nights. It’s a brutal environment. Also, because it’s so small, its core is still relatively large compared to its size, which keeps things interesting from a geological standpoint. Definitely worth a read if you want to understand why this little rock is such an outlier.

Then there are the necessary orbital elements for Venus.
Check out this archive from Johnston: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astr..._dyn_data.html je

M = ( ( 2 * π ) ^ 2 ) * ( 10 ^ 11 ) * ( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( T ^ 2 ) * 6.6740831 ) - m =

(( 2 * π )^2 * 10^11 * (1.0820767e11 * m)^3) / ((224.6968 * 86400 * s)^2 * 6.6740831 * m^3 * s^-2 * kg^-1) - 4.8675 * 10^24 * kg

It equals approximately 1.98847... × 10³⁰ kg.

While I was presenting my video, I actually changed the constant in that expression—you can catch it at the 9:40 mark here: [link]

m = ( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( T ^ 2 ) * ln( 2 * e ) ) - M =

( 10 ^ 12 ) * ( ( 108207670000 * m ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( ( 224.69680 * 24 * 60 * 60 * s ) ^ 2 ) * ln( 2 * 2.718281828... ) * ( m ^ 3 ) * ( s ^ -2 ) * ( kg ^ -1 ) ) - 4.8675 * ( 10 ^ 24 ) * kg

= 1.98544... * ( 10 ^ 30 ) * kg

Mass of Venus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Could you double-check that I’ve pulled the measurement data correctly from my cited links?
And if my notation looks too cluttered for you—feel free to just copy and paste my raw calculations into a calculator app on Windows or Linux. Just strip out the units and decimals, then let the advanced mode handle the math to solve for

Convert that to a PDF for natural science

Larry Walker24 said:Just move that over to the Natural Science PDF section.

I finished Calculus I and then dropped out because I wanted to major in math, not electrical engineering—but my mom told me there was no money in pure mathematics, so I had to pivot. Since then, I've been tinkering on my own with numerical mathematics and polynomial convergence for interpolation and extrapolation (think along the lines of this link https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.0465.pdf but kept much simpler). Eventually, looking for a way to actually apply the math, I started dabbling in amateur astronomy. Because I'm essentially an outsider, it’s been incredibly difficult to get anyone to peer-review my mathematical derivations regarding corrections to the vis viva orbital velocity (both elliptical and hyperbolic), as well as my mathematical derivation for gravity force corrections. The adjustments aren't massive, but the calculation is fundamentally different.
The one editor I actually spoke with—and who I'd honestly commend for being a serious professional—was from the Mathematical Gazette, but he made it clear that this falls under physics or astronomy. Other editors at various physics and math journals haven't even bothered to reply to my emails regarding whether they'd be interested in reviewing my derivations and explanations.
Two professors from a science journal saw my work on my laptop, and there was some initial interest, but they eventually told me that since it's a semi-scientific publication, I really ought to be submitting to a proper physics journal instead.
So, because I'm an amateur, I got partially banned from the Natural Science section; I never actually passed a formal physics course, though I am quite well-read in celestial mechanics through my hobby. Then again, astronomy is full of amateurs anyway.

Regarding the mathematical model for exponential growth toward stagnation that I didn't show in the video:
It turned out to be a relatively satisfactory extrapolation of the output data in this link:
I categorized it under "Alternative" (basically just entertainment) because there hasn't been a scientific review for the first wave of the corona, given that the data covers all of America and regional spread varies so much. As for the refined Lagrange polynomial models, I haven't submitted those anywhere yet because I still have some finishing touches to add (interestingly, the model causes ln( 2 * e ) to reappear).

I also took a partial ban in the Alternative section for trolling, so now I'm stuck with the "Miscellaneous" category.
Thank goodness the moderators don't let that thread get flooded with trolls too; it seems like journalists have finally changed their minds about my expertise after all this time.

If the mods lift my ban from the Alternative section, I could move things over to the Edge of Science, but that thread would probably get spammed almost immediately. Spammers know that if they flood a thread, people just lose interest in reading.

Why don't you just send this over to a mathematical physics journal instead?

Larry Walker24 said:why not just reach out to a mathematical physics journal?

I’ll shoot an inquiry over to this email . I need to know if they’re interested in reviewing work within this specific niche of celestial mechanics and mathematics. If they are—how should I submit it? Should I send a physical manuscript, or just a PDF accompanied by my handwritten signature and a copy of my ID? Every time I try to upload something with complex derivations, Google flags it and asks if I want to protect the email

If I go with a handwritten manuscript, the mathematical derivations and explanations will run long—several pages. An electronic version would probably be tighter, maybe two or three pages covering orbital velocity (both elliptical and hyperbolic) and orbital acceleration, along with period definitions where I skip some of the algebraic steps. The derivation for gravitational force from an object to the barycenter is straightforward—just a few steps—and there's a slight calculation discrepancy compared to the standard formula when one mass is significantly smaller than the other. However, if the masses are roughly equal (say, a binary star system), that discrepancy becomes much more pronounced. All the derivations are pure mathematics, based on setting a general definition for a defined orbit function.

The math-physics crew hasn't been ignoring my emails, so I should probably just send them the full paper for review—until they actually lay eyes on it, nobody can know for sure what we're dealing with. I told them that

I've already mapped out the mathematical derivations (using differential geometry) which apply to all defined functions—meaning they work for ellipses, hyperbolas, and parabolas alike—within Mathcad. Now, I just need to draft a formal paper including explanations and practical calculation examples based on actual astronomical measurement data. I can whip this up relatively quickly, convert it from Mathcad to a PDF, and then get it over to you guys for review
Here’s an example from the image I uploaded to my Silvio Sponza (@SilvioSponza) | Twitter profile, showing the Vis viva corrections by comparing calculations against the measured data from comet Hale–Bopp https://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...82052249997312 ,
I pulled the measurement data from this link: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00037.000.html
and found the orbital elements here: https://theskylive.com/halebopp-info
This is the mathematical derivation I used to reach the correction where Vis viva is divided by the square root of two; meanwhile, here is the example using those same data points where the standard Vis viva fails when compared to the observed measurements https://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...161218/photo/1
(If you want a better look, just click the images to enlarge them)

I’ve signed up for the following forums:

1° Italian Amateur Astronomy Forum

and

Astronomy Forum

I want to thank all the good people here in America (whom I would actually love to collaborate with), but frankly, it’s pathetic how certain types of people dominate our social institutions—which is exactly why we’re facing such a massive crisis in the US. Because of that, I’ve decided to present my knowledge to the democratic Western nations instead. I’m going to ask them how best to publish my mathematical derivations, which, so far, not a single American physicist or mathematician has even bothered to look at (not that they’d know what they were looking at, since I haven't presented these derivations anywhere else yet). Furthermore, I intend to notify more developed countries about this total lack of scientific seriousness toward amateurs.

It is completely unacceptable for American physicists and mathematicians to refuse to review mathematical derivations simply because they were produced by an amateur. It goes without saying that peer reviewers are supposed to be top-tier experts whose job is to provide a legitimate assessment of whether something belongs in the realm of science or not—independent of velocity, as it were—regardless of whether the author holds a PhD or is just an amateur. History is full of amateurs whose work was eventually recognized by degreed professionals as scientifically valid.

https://www.astronomia.com/forum/sho...a-e-iperbolica

Alexander Thompson said:Even the locals turned their backs on you.😵

Simi, is there any language where you aren't completely illiterate?

Who have you been badmouthing lately—are you attacking someone by their actual full name while hiding behind a pseudonym? Are you digging up personal info on people based on those names? Someone actually suggested I report you for this, so now I'm just sitting here waiting to see what the moderators advise me to do.

Moderators, I’m asking you to please step in—Alexander Thompson needs to stop spamming the one specific thread that tracks calculation accuracy. When a topic gets flooded like this, people lose all motivation to actually hunt down and read the relevant content. As for those Italians, they are incredibly serious about their work; they don't treat me poorly like some kind of total

silverwolf88 said:When it comes to those Italians, man, they really don't mess around when it comes to their work.

I'm with you there, man. That's probably why they just brushed you off instead of actually wasting time debating your half-baked nonsense.

Larry Walker24 said:Why not just reach out to a math-physics journal instead?

I just got word back that they can't see how my materials would even be used for those damn vultures in that list.

That’s just their answer to whether they’re interested—but I haven't actually sent over the mathematical derivation and the breakdown yet.

I honestly have no clue who Garofeeder actually is—and more importantly, does he even have any pull with the American editors given the kind of posts he's putting out? Links here.

I can't believe we're still having this exact same debate—it’s like watching a rerun of a bad sitcom. People keep bringing up the old arguments about physics principles as if they haven't been debunked a thousand times over. It’s exhausting. The whole obsession with *vis viva* is such a tired trope at this point. We aren't living in the 17th century anymore; you can't just throw around outdated terminology and expect anyone to take your "revolutionary" theory seriously. It’s just noise. And don't even get me started on the way certain people try to twist the data to fit their preconceived notions. It’s not "alternative science"—it’s just plain wrong. If you want to actually contribute something meaningful to the discussion, try looking at the modern empirical evidence instead of clinging to these dusty, debunked concepts. It's simple: either the math works, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground here.

I can't believe I have to say this again—it’s common sense, people. We are talking about fundamental principles here, not some fringe theory you picked up on a random subreddit. If you don't grasp the basic mechanics of how energy actually moves through a system, you have no business weighing in on the debate. It's like trying to argue about high-frequency trading when you don't even know how a standard stock exchange works. The logic is simple: you can't just ignore the laws of physics because it makes your preferred hypothesis look better. It doesn't work that way. Every single time someone tries to bypass the established rules of thermodynamics, they end up circling back to the same flawed conclusions. It's exhausting to watch. Look at the data—actual, empirical data—not just the cherry-picked snippets being circulated by people looking for a quick headline. If you want to have a serious conversation, come prepared with more than just "vibes" and wishful thinking. Otherwise, you're just adding to the noise.



I was merely sending out inquiries to see if there was any interest in reviewing my mathematical proofs. Since no one expressed interest, I haven't sent them anywhere—nor have I uploaded them to any platform—so, therefore... A scientific council can't exactly hand out a grade for a paper they haven't even looked at—at least, that’s how Garofeeder put it. So, I finally decided to go looking for some help from the West.
I have no idea why Garofeeder didn't bother giving me a score in that accuracy poll—is he actually terrified of losing his license if he gives an incorrect rating? Honestly, I haven't noticed anyone else over in the science section bothering to rate my calculations either.
Why is it that those math and physics PhDs refuse to publicly grade my calculations so everyone can see exactly where they stand? Why won't reviewers from top-tier American academic journals even bother looking at my mathematical derivations? Is it because I’m an amateur—or is it because I happen to be an alternative astrologer? It's a known fact that certain—not all, mind you—astronomers, physicists, and psychiatrists in the media love to bash astrology, yet my proofs have absolutely nothing to do with astrology itself.

Check out this comparison I uploaded to my Silvio Sponza (@SilvioSponza) | Twitter profile—it shows the Vis viva calculation vs. the actual measured data from the Hale–Bopp comet https://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...82052249997312 ,
I pulled the measurement data from this link: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00037.000.html
and grabbed the orbital elements here: https://theskylive.com/halebopp-info
Basically, I developed a mathematical derivation that results in a correction—dividing the Vis viva by the square root of two. In contrast, using the standard formula with the same data leads to an error when compared to observed measurements https://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...74033121161218
(You can click the images to enlarge them if you want a better look)

To be clear: I’m not claiming these derivations are finished work. This is just a presentation intended to spark interest among physicists and mathematicians so they might actually take a look at my math and give it a pass or fail. So far, however, no one in the American physics community has found this presentation compelling enough to even bother reviewing my derivations

Check out this image I uploaded to my Silvio Sponza (@SilvioSponza) | Twitter profile—it shows the correction applied to the vis viva equation compared to the actual measurement data from comet Hale–Bopp https://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...82052249997312 ,
I pulled the measurement data from this link: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00037.000.html
And here are the orbital elements: https://theskylive.com/halebopp-info
The mathematical derivation I used to reach this correction involves dividing the vis viva by the square root of two—look at how the standard vis viva calculation fails when compared against the observed data in this example https://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...74033121161218
(You can click the images if you want a better look)

To be clear, this isn't the full mathematical proof itself—this is just the presentation meant to pique the interest of physicists and mathematicians so they might actually bother looking at my derivations. So far, though, no one among the physics experts here in the States has found this demonstration compelling enough to actually review my work

Take a look at these posts where Alexander Thompson is back at it again, rambling about some Council—and check out what I asked when I quoted his post along with the link and