Can you grade the calculations I just presented?

Alexander Thompson said:Djokica, I gave you my rating. You little dog—🤷

Anyway, how did you actually improve Moreover? You were bragging quite a bit about pulling that off 😒

Where exactly are we with kinetic energy? Lost in some dead-end alleyway?

Why have you started acting all high and mighty with scientists who clearly think I know more about this field than you do when it comes to grading my knowledge?

Once my work on the mathematical derivation of kinetic energy using infinitesimal calculus, which I am currently finalizing has been reviewed and graded, then I'll be able to write here whether my review passed or failed.

Alexander Thompson said:So, he managed to mess up a formula from the seventeenth century by a mere 1%? Bravo!

And that’s not even the half of it! He actually managed to double the energy of a moving body—suddenly, energy isn't (mv^2)/2 anymore, it's mv^2!

This is going to lead to a massive spike in transportation costs because you'll need twice the fuel just to hit the same speeds. But don't worry, we won't let him publish this "revolutionary" derivation, so things will stay exactly as they were.

In short, it's just an ass rubbing an ass.

I don't see how a mathematical error changes prices when private corporations set arbitrary rates—like how big banks charge insane interest, hotels charge luxury rates for a room, or restaurants charge premium prices for dinner, and so on. That greed is a much bigger driver of any financial crisis than some minor correction in a math formula.

silverwolf88 said:So, I’m just wrapping up my paper now—this group of scientists is actually interested in reviewing it, and they're pretty much hovering, waiting to see my mathematical derivations. I still need to plug in a practical example and some references, but I've run into a few technical hiccups. If they end up approving the math, they’ll probably just send it back to me to fix the formatting... also, I told them straight up that my English isn't great, and they were cool about it—said they have translators on hand, so I'll just send the work over in American English once it's ready.

I can confirm—they’ve already reached out to the Council. They're basically asking how we haven't realized what kind of absolute joke we've got sitting right in our midst yet.

They even asked for a translator, so we ended up assigning them a sloth.

Alexander Thompson said:I can confirm—they’ve already reached out to the Council. They’re actually asking how we haven't realized what a total joke we're dealing with here.

They even asked for a translator, so we assigned them a local guide from Peru.

I find it hard to believe you're some secret society operative whose story is being taken seriously by scientists in major developed nations. They know exactly where American science stands on the global stage—and frankly, it looks like fewer and fewer American scientists are buying your nonsense, especially once they see the math I presented was spot on.

silverwolf88 said:I find it hard to believe you're some sort of secret society figure whose theories are actually taken seriously by scientists in high-standard nations—they know exactly where American science stands on the global stage, and frankly, it looks like even fewer American scientists are buying your story, especially once they see the math I presented is spot on.

P. S.

Look, I've laid this work out clearly enough for a freshman science major to follow—so in my view, the odds of a mathematical derivation failing peer review are basically zero—but hey, even after 30 years in this field, there's always a chance I could trip up. So, I’ll let you know if my review passes or fails once the top-tier physics and math experts have had their say.

I'm putting the finishing touches (really almost done now) on a paper where I mathematically prove that Gottfried Leibniz was actually right about E = m * ( v ^ 2 )
which—following the derivation from Daniel Bernoulli suggesting E = m * ( v ^ 2 ) / 2
sparked a massive controversy that dragged on for nearly a century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_viva ,
but through my own differential mathematical derivation, I’m restoring what was considered established truth prior to 1741
If this review passes, I hope that as an American citizen, I've made a significant contribution to the United States by finally resolving this kinetic energy dilemma that's been hanging over us for two and a half centuries

I can't even list everyone who helped me since I reached out to so many people, but
I want to thank everyone who supported me; because of you, I've earned the chance to have my work formally reviewed and peer-reviewed

silverwolf88 said:Take the image I uploaded to my Silvio Sponza (@SilvioSponza) | Twitter profile—it shows the correction to the VIS viva compared to the calculations using measurement data from comet Hale–Bopphttps://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...82052249997312 ,
using the measurement data sourced from this linkhttp://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00037.000.html
and the orbital elements from this linkhttps://theskylive.com/halebopp-info
I performed the mathematical derivation myself to arrive at this correction—specifically that the VIS viva should be divided by the other square root of two—whereas the example using the exact same data shows the VIS viva failing when compared to the observed data calculationshttps://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...74033121161218
(you can click the images to enlarge them)

To be clear: this isn't the full mathematical proof itself. This is just a presentation intended to pique the interest of physicists and mathematicians so they might actually bother looking at the derivations I’ve put together. So far, however, no one among the physics experts here in the US has found this presentation compelling enough to review my work

P. S.

The presentation works fine, and there is interest both here in America and abroad. I'll be wrapping up the final version of the derivation in a few days—the math is already done, I just need to format everything clearly. Once it's ready, I'll send over the first draft for peer review. If it passes, I'll fix any technical formatting issues or page numbering errors

silverwolf88 said:Take a look at this image I uploaded to my Silvio Sponza (@SilvioSponza) | Twitter profile—it shows the correction to the VIS viva compared to calculations using 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
along with the orbital elements from https://theskylive.com/halebopp-info
Here’s the deal: I worked out a mathematical derivation where the VIS viva is divided by the square root of two. If you look at the example using the exact same data without that adjustment, the VIS viva fails when compared to the observed data https://twitter.com/SilvioSponza/sta...74033121161218
(You can click the images to enlarge them if you want to actually see the numbers)

To be clear, this isn't the full mathematical proof itself—this is just a presentation. It's meant to grab the attention of actual physicists and mathematicians so they might actually bother looking at the derivations I've done to give them a pass or fail. So far, however, no one in the American physics community has found this presentation compelling enough to even glance at my work

In my initial mathematical derivation regarding the kinetic energy correction $E = m \cdot (v^2)$ and the comparison involving comet Hale–Bopp—which I sent via PDF to various American mathematical journals—I noted that based on the measurement data from the cited links, the period of comet Hale–Bopp is 896,686.574 days. However, according to the calculations from the link https://theskylive.com/halebopp-info, the period of comet Hale–Bopp is listed as 897,204.6223 days.

The spammers have hijacked that thread, so let's just move our discussion over here instead.

silverwolf88 said:Spammers basically hijacked that other thread, so we might as well just hash things out over here instead.

Yeah, they totally trashed that thread 😂

Just when the discussion was actually getting interesting—classic me, showing up right when things get good just to mess it all up. 🤣