E=MxM-R Theory

Does E=MC squared make sense?! From the moment I heard about Einstein’s formula calculating energy, I assumed it must be some kind of mystical magical genius number system that I, as a lay person, simply did not and could not fathom. What I found upon further reading, studying, and examination of this explanation of energy is that it makes no sense whatsoever! I think that my formula and explanation of energy, especially as it relates to the Sun and its light makes more perfect and understandable common-sense.

Let me explain. My formula for energy is this: E=MxM-R, which is Energy equals Momentum times Mass minus Resistance. To achieve a proper and closer calculation of energy, we must first take into consideration several factors. The heat and/or any light weight on the object or light stream, atmospheric pressure and humidity surrounding the object of propulsion or sunlight, the shape of the object from all sides, the weight of the mass, any particles of time such as dust that may change minutely any trajectory of the object, wind resistance like a headwind or side wind or lack thereof, and possibly other known element changes that may occur at high speeds must be calculated for true energy to be understood.

E=MC squared is relativism mass times the speed of light then squared. What is relativism? Well, that is relative, isn’t it? It is immeasurable. I do not believe that energy is purely light as it relates to the Sunlight. Molten lava, for instance, which I believe is what the Sun is made of produces a similar light stream as the Sun, but because we are closer to the source of this mass it’s measurement of energy is only theory, at best. Therefore, to say that we can calculate the heat of the mass of the Sun is to be theoretically and totally incorrect. The heat from the Sun’s beams of light here on Earth is…relative. As an example, some sunlight in different places on Earth, although the same temperature, will melt butter at different measurements.

Also, take into consideration that mass can be faster than the speed of light! So, there goes that standard of measurement, as well. In fact, even with no wind or air differentiation, there is a frequency or friction resistance that must be calculated. Altogether, you must factor each resistance, even to light itself, to obtain the true measurement of energy.

Speed of light squared is calculated by experts in the math community as 299,792,458 meters per second. But this calculation is also relative as each and every human on Earth who may perform the calculations perceives light at different times or units of measure, from the light source to their eyes or apparatus. Light travels, according to the experts, at 186,000 miles per second to the human eye or camera (300,000 kps). This perception of recognition is a brain calculation as much as it is an eye receptive calculation. It takes time for the light to be understood in the brain as an event of measure. Even for a camera, there must occur a transfer of change to the optics or elements that capture the light so that it changes the condition of the film letting us know that the light event happened in the first place. Also, to be measured is the light source and its catalyst and how it may bend before it reaches the surface of calculation. As is known, when you bend something, it takes it longer to reach its destination. True? This is also a calculation resistance to be measured.

As an example of measurement, we need to focus on two or three objects of projectiles that may help us determine if my theory holds true. An explosion of a bullet and then a beer can, done at the same time using the same catalyst, would produce a different measurement of force, time, and distance achieved. A beer can, for instance, is round like the bullet, but it has a flatter front. It also has a different mass. The bullet is more aerodynamic and the weight of it may carry it further than the beer can. A headwind or side wind would also change directions of each object. That is why we calculate as best we can where the golf ball will land closest to the hole when we play the game. If you put the bullet and beer can, one in one hand and one in the other, you may be surprised. Wow! They both feel as if they weigh about the same or the bullet may feel slightly heavier to you, depending on if the beer is inside the can or it is empty – another measurement. However, the drag through air is different from each other. The bullet would outpace the beer can and reach the target sooner than the beer can even if they were both exactly perfectly squarely even on their backside where the catalyst pushed them forward. If the beer can were slightly crushed or handled and dented on its sides, this might even prevent it from going in the same direction as the bullet, because the bottom of the aluminum (element) can change shape and structure to the point that the catalyst sends it flying in a different direction than it would have a perfectly flat-backed contact point. Crush the beer can in your hand a bit to prove this fact.

Gravity also plays a role in how an object my perform when pushed in any direction. At some areas of the planet, gravity is…relative. In Wisconsin, U.S.A. there is a demagnetized and magnetic polarization that occurs in one spot that is a mystery to scientists. They cannot determine why a person perceives a different elevation when standing in that area (look it up). There are also several places on Earth that have been observed to bend light or make an object never hit their intended target. These places should provide us with the understanding that an object or light or elements may react in different ways according to where the measurements are done in the first place. Just a thought. As I have explained in some of my other theories, atmospheric pressures, lava movements under the Earth's surface, wind events and pathways, and magnetic or anti-magnetic polarization make energy measurements difficult, at best. I am not trying to confuse my readers expounding on these minute details of measurement regarding energy or relativity, I merely want to provide another theory of explanation why we may be relying on outdated mysterious formulas to confound and confuse society instead of expanding possibilities.

One last thought about perception of heat and light as it relates to energy. If you live in Maine, U.S.A., the shadow under a tree in full sunlight but at the same temperature is different than the shadow which occurs under a tree in southern Louisiana, U.S.A. The reason for the difference is humidity and how it collects onto either you (organic cells), your clothes (plants), your jewelry (metal), the tree itself, and the ground around and under the tree. They also all sweat to a certain degree. Bright objects or people tend to repel light, while black or darker people or objects soak up light. This phenomenon may also be a calculation of energy on whatever energy source (beginning) or surface (end) that must be taken into consideration if true and accurate information is to be shared about the energy capability or capacity to produce energy.

According to ThoughtCo., as I searched about Einstein’s theory, says that no object with mass can accelerate to precisely the speed of light and that a photon will not accelerate because it moves at exactly the same speed as light. It also says that the speed of light is a limit for a physical object. It goes on to say that kinetic energy goes on infinitely at the speed of light and cannot be achieved by acceleration. I disagree.

For one thing, as I have said perception interferes with any calculation of energy whether from a light source or object. Another thought is that a mass or object may encounter unseen waves of energy either on Earth or in the great beyond. These waves of unseen propulsions or limiters do have effect on the behavior of energy or photons making it decelerate or accelerate at will, especially as it relates to the length of time and duration of these unseen prolonged encounters. Just as a baseball may be thrown by a pitcher as a curve ball. The perception of the batter is that they have the ability to meet the ball with their bat. However, as is most often the case, they swing futilely trying to connect the bat to the ball. An object may encounter smoother or more slick conditions as it travels forward. Could it, therefore, speed up on its journey? Yes.

Such is the same scenario for a solid, liquid, gas, or light beam. The conditions along a path may change, unbeknownst to the observer or measuring apparatus. An object only goes forward at the catalyst propulsion as is observed in outer space with astronauts as they let a pen suspend in front of them when they let it go. Conversely, an object in a vat of Jell-O has resistance while in outer space the unseen resistance may be much less. To push an object forward past the speed of light is not your decision. You cannot see the object in real time, anyway, as it speeds past you or your apparatus measuring it. How would you perceive the object is even in existence? Do we see every tiny particle of space dust as it zooms past our planet? A tiny comet, perhaps. You see, the problem with most theories to date are the lack of knowledge of outer space applications or concepts of theory based upon data collection sustained by NASA or other spacecraft exploration and observation. To put it bluntly, even these data are not completely understood by the aerospace community…bones separation in space, for example.

A scientist cannot control a photon’s reaction or perception of its state of reality. The speed of light as measured by the experts is relative and has differentiation as a pure calculation. Just because you cannot calculate the speed of an object does not mean that it cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light. Just as you cannot hear the jet go furiously past you until the sonic boom. Also, as I have stated in my other theories you may find on my Solutions page link in the menu, the Sun began the entire lighting of space in the first place, spinning from expulsion of energy as kinetic elements collided and ignited. It spun so fast and with such force that when it eventually exploded all size and manner of lava masses were sent spinning to the far reaches of dark void space creating (some still spinning like the Earth) planets or streaming comets that we see now and again in orbit around the Sun.

The vastness of the black void was lit by this Sun mass of elements (like flint on a stone causes a fire to be lit when it encounters acceptable combustible particles). The Sun mass had accumulated all these volatile combination of kinetic elements into a magnetic (inert catalyst attractor) mass, even producing various gases, that did spin beyond measure, by a fissure expulsion of gases on one side to make it begin its spinning. Then, these gaseous and other elements lit on fire by friction to make it spin ever faster. As a grand finale, the humongous Sun mass exploded into the black void sending bits and pieces, themselves spinning violently, into the far depths of space where some are still traveling and spinning outward from their origin. We just cannot see them. So, what I theorize is that inert objects can be a catalyst, but we just cannot see their abilities to move mass, elements, or gases. What is left of the once gigantic Sun mass is what illuminates our planet and universe today. Then, also, some planets we observe are still in a state of evolution or inert from lack of photosynthesis. I also believe that many "moons" or orbiting bits around planets like ours were initially rolling on the surface of the planet capturing inert or magnetic mass but eventually, in time, as they gathered mass and weight changed orbit further and further away from the connection to their planet. Example: Earth's moon. Example: Asteroids circling far away planets like the one NASA just hit to move it from its orbit. (Yeah, right. They can't even get things or people off this planet yet. Read more about this in my other pieces if you are curious.)

Other areas of the black void may also be lit, unseen by our measurements or apparatus by a ball of fire lava elements like our Sun, too. Some balls of fire may have been blown to the far reaches as the core of the Sun mass spewed out a mini-Sun that may illuminate another galaxy or universe. We just cannot see or fathom its existence. However, my theories about our beginnings and how far out into space were spun different size and compositions of mass bits of lava is something other theorists have so far not considered. They say the big bang may have happened. This is true. But they have not, until my theory, explained why and how it happened in the first place and how planets deep into space may still retain inner core lava like our planet or how fast they may still be spinning or traveling still from the explosion of the massive mass in the black void that was the Sun before the explosion occurred. Comets, in my estimation, still retain heat within their core as they travel in their orbit or deeper and deeper into space, just like Earth’s core is lava. We see their conch trail behind as they journey past our planet. We just cannot observe their existence, only those we see or record from here. The same can be said of heavier or hotter round or oblong spun planets going deep into space still yet from the initial explosion. As far as I can theorize, the depth of “space” is indeed infinity. As humans, we wish to find an end to it all. It comforts us to know that we can achieve finality to our existence. But I theorize there is no end. The black void goes on forever. And, just as you crave the light because you cannot see in the darkness, there are creatures who crave the dark (their home) because they cannot see in the light. They will keep retreating from the light as we desire to illuminate their space.

As for kinetic energy going on for infinity at the speed of light with no acceleration possible, I think if you apply what I have said above to the possibility that a kinetic ball of energy may explode occasionally by its own interaction with its own elemental combinations, then it is a possibility to accelerate or project kinetic energy such as a lightning bolt to extend at a faster rate depending on the resistance it encounters or lack thereof, as in deep space.

Remember, energy is a perception as well as a reality. Some people are hot-natured, while others are cold-natured, while others are just right in body temperature. How the light or Sun’s rays feel or look to you or are perceived by your individual measurements is unique. We should give everyone clear explanations in plain language (not just mathematical terminology) exactly what some formulas say or calculate and how it is all done. The mathematics, science, technology, and Mensa communities have come up with many different symbols or words as meanings for how to solve their problems. These are all meant as job security. They want you to think that their job is extremely difficult; thereby, creating a "click" of those who decide to lord it over the rest of the population as stupid lay persons. These are the same people who have lied to you about me and the crap in your food or flying saucers. These are the same people who would lie about my intelligence or kindness or my ability to provide you with everything you ever wanted in life = your beautiful view = so that they can make fun of your ignorance or inability to protect your beautiful view from their evil agendas.

Just look what happens in outer space to the body. Scientists are baffled by how these changes occur (because they have never actually been there) and should not be telling lay people that they would not understand or be able to explain non-gravity experiences. Give so-called uneducated or young people the opportunity to help us all find the correct answers. I do believe, however, that this outer space reality, in its own right, is another measurement that some extreme purists on calculations may attempt to solve. You go, physicists!

Resistance to any object, even sunlight, or interference from anything of the perception of energy from a source or object differs from person to person, but I will say that relatively speaking, we can provide a truer calculation going forward without the use of useless Algebra. I mean, if you are going to provide accuracy in calculations, shouldn’t the Mensa community care if what they believe to be a true formula be all-encompassing to the inth degree? Be honest. Do you really care about how accurate is any formula? Or are you just concerned about hypotheses and are grateful someone else seeming more intelligent about a subject provided an answer? Yeah, let’s go with that. I think Einstein’s theory of relativity is obsolete now, don’t you?

© Copyright, E=MxM-R Theory, 1/10/2023, April Graves-Minton, Love MoonEagle. All Rights Reserved.

Please give me credit for this theory when discussing or writing about it. I hope you enjoy this layman explanation of relativity. You may start or join the conversation by commenting below. I may or may not expound more on this subject as people hop on to further the theory.