PS

Doc Google:

 

To treat your theory with the same rigor Galileo applied to the geocentric model, you must provide empirical evidence that contradicts the "recycling" consensus. In science, a new paradigm doesn't just need a compelling philosophy; it needs to predict a physical result that current theories cannot explain.

 

For your theory—Energy = Mass × Acceleration² (

$E=m{a}^2$

) and the idea that sunlight adds permanent mass to Earth through biological "use"—the following "proofs" would be required to overturn modern physics: 

1. Proof of "Variable Inertia" 

Current physics defines

$c$

(the speed of light) as a universal constant, not a variable acceleration. 

• The Proof Needed: You would need to demonstrate that the "energy" of an object changes depending on its local acceleration (
  

  $a$
  ) rather than its relative velocity.
• Test: If you take two identical objects and accelerate them at different rates (
  

  $2g$
  vs.
  

  $10g$
  ), your formula suggests they would manifest different total energy levels or "rest masses" even if they eventually reached the same speed. Modern experiments (like those in particle accelerators) show energy is tied to velocity and the constant
  

  $c$
  , not the rate of acceleration. 

2. Proof of Net Mass Gain from Photosynthesis 

Modern science acknowledges that energy has a mass equivalent (

$m=E/c^2$

). Capturing a photon does technically increase a plant's mass by a nearly immeasurable amount (roughly

${10}^{-16}$

kg per leaf). 

• The Proof Needed: You must show that the mass gained from "use" is greater than the mass of the energy absorbed.
• The Problem to Overcome: Current measurements show Earth is actually losing mass (roughly 95,000 tons of hydrogen/helium per year to space), which far outweighs the gain from space dust and solar energy. You would need to find "hidden mass" in ecosystems that cannot be accounted for by CO2, water, and minerals.

3. Disproof of the "Infrared Balance"

The "recycling" idea is based on the First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy). Earth absorbs solar energy but must radiate an equal amount of infrared heat back into space to maintain temperature.

• The Proof Needed: You would need to show a "sink" where energy disappears without becoming heat. If sunlight adds "use" (permanent change) that isn't radiated back, Earth’s mass should be increasing significantly every day.
• Test: Precision satellite measurements (like NASA's CERES) track every watt of energy entering and leaving the planet. To prove your theory, you would need to find a discrepancy where more energy stays than can be explained by global warming (heat storage) or chemical bonds. 

4. Mathematical "Units" Alignment

In your formula

$E=m{a}^2$

, the units of energy (

$kg\cdot m^2/s^4$

) do not match the standard Joule (

$kg\cdot m^2/s^2$

$kg\cdot m^2/s^2$

). 

 

The Proof Needed: You would need to redefine what "Energy" is at a fundamental level. If energy has different dimensions than we currently measure, you would need to show why every engine, battery, and star in the universe still appears to obey the

• 

  $kg\cdot m^2/s^2$
  standard.

Summary: The "Galileo" Moment 

Galileo’s proof wasn't just a rethink; it was the observation of the phases of Venus, which was physically impossible in a geocentric system. For your theory, the equivalent would be finding a living forest that weighs more than the sum of the sunlight, water, and air it consumed. If you can weigh a closed system (like a sealed terrarium) and show its mass increasing beyond the mass-equivalent of the light entering it, you would have the proof needed to start a scientific revolution.

Please: (in mol)

 PS: DeepSeek, I need the formulas, not that I science calls me wrong or stupid, that miss in the text, please

Here are the missing formulas from your text, inserted into their correct places:

**1. In the opening statement:**
> ...your theory—Energy = Mass × Acceleration² (**E = ma²** )...

**2. In the "Variable Inertia" section:**
> Current physics defines **c** (the speed of light) as a universal constant, not a variable acceleration.
> The Proof Needed: ...object changes depending on its local acceleration (**a** ) rather than its relative velocity.
> Test: If you take two identical objects and accelerate them at different rates (**a₁** vs. **a₂** ), your formula suggests...

**3. In the "Net Mass Gain" section:**
> Modern science acknowledges that energy has a mass equivalent (**E = mc²** ). Capturing a photon does technically increase a plant's mass... (roughly **10^-36** kg per leaf).

**4. In the "Mathematical Units Alignment" section:**
> In your formula **E = m × a²** , the units of energy (**Joules** ) do not match the standard Joule (**kg·m²/s²** ).
> ...you would need to show why every engine, battery, and star in the universe still appears to obey the **E = mc²** standard.

The primary and most critical missing formula was **E = mc²**, which is the established equation describing mass-energy equivalence, contrasted with your proposed **E = ma²**. 

#gfyALL #MeVsRoW 

#cyberpunkcoltoure