Introducing the NKT Law – A proposal for position-dependent inertia

DaveC426913 said:
Does it reflect the infall of meteors and dust? As far as I know, the Earth's mass is approximately constant, roughly balancing infall of solar system material with escape of gases.

Do you know otherwise? I mean aside from your NKT "interpolation"?
Click to expand...
You're right — that's what all of us have believed. That's precisely why the NKTg framework points out that this assumption may not be accurate. Since the concepts in NKTg differ fundamentally from current physics, I used NASA's data as a common reference so that everyone can verify it for themselves.


I invite the whole world — from physicists to programmers — to take the raw data directly from NASA (I’ve provided the link), plug it into the NKTg formula, and verify whether the results are correct or not.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Um.

GRACE-FO tracks changes in how mass is distributed within and between Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, groundwater and ice sheets.

GRACE-FO tracks "...Earth’s water movement and surface mass changes across the planet. Monitoring changes in ice sheets and glaciers, near-surface and underground water storage, the amount of water in large lakes and rivers, as well as changes in sea level and ocean currents provides an integrated global view of how Earth’s water cycle and energy balance are evolving..."

That says nothing about the total mass of the Earth.

Your core premise is flawed.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your detailed analysis. I'd like to add the following:


You're absolutely right that GRACE-FO does not directly measure the total mass of the Earth, but rather tracks the redistribution of mass — especially related to water, ice, and near-surface layers. However, on NASA’s official website and GRACE-FO project pages, they clearly publish graphs and datasets showing that Earth is losing mass every year, primarily due to ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as groundwater depletion in many regions.


So even though they don’t explicitly state how much the total mass of Earth is changing, they do show that mass is being lost annually in significant parts of the planet.


While current physics models consider this merely as a redistribution of internal mass, NKTg proposes that this contributes to an actual change in total mass — and that this change can be detected via orbital parameters (distance, velocity) published by NASA.


In summary, I do not deny the importance of GRACE-FO — in fact, its data also supports the observation that Earth is losing mass year by year. NKTg simply adds another perspective: that this is not just internal redistribution, but a real, measurable change in total mass, and this can be verified using the NKTg formula with publicly available data.
 
TheNKTLaw said:
In response to the question "How do you know the Earth's mass is decreasing?", here's my explanation:


When using NASA's input data from the year 2023, the NKTg framework treats that as the present and then predicts the Earth's mass for 2024 — meaning 2024 is considered the future relative to 2023. The results show that Earth's mass has decreased, consistent with experimental findings.


To calculate the Earth's mass in 2024, we apply the formula from the NKTg law, where NKTg1 = x * p. From this, we derive the mass as:


m = NKTg1 / (x * v)


This shows how the mass is determined using NKTg.
Click to expand...
No.

That's you, making derivations.

How do you know the Earth's mass is decreasing in the first place? Where is the raw data?
 
TheNKTLaw said:
Earth is losing mass every year, primarily due to ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as groundwater depletion in many regions.
Click to expand...
It's losing land mass, not planetary mass.

Ice melt and ground water are not flying off into space.
 
TheNKTLaw said:
GRACE/GRACE-FO recorded mass losses of ~10²⁰–10²¹ kg/year².
Click to expand...
Since the Earth's mass is 6 x 10^{24} kg, that amounts to a loss of about 0.017% of the Earth's mass every year.

If that is correct, then all the mass will be gone in about 6000 years from now.

Do you think the Earth will vanish in the next 6000 years, TheNKTLaw?

Why didn't it vanish long ago, if this rate of mass loss is correct? How has it lasted for 4.5 billion years?
 
DaveC426913 said:
No.

That's you, making derivations.

How do you know the Earth's mass is decreasing in the first place? Where is the raw data?
Click to expand...
I’m absolutely not making any assumptions; I just use the NKTg law based on NASA’s input data of x and v, then interpolate the Earth’s mass.
 
James R said:
Since the Earth's mass is 6 x 10^{24} kg, that amounts to a loss of about 0.017% of the Earth's mass every year.

If that is correct, then all the mass will be gone in about 6000 years from now.

Do you think the Earth will vanish in the next 6000 years, TheNKTLaw?

Why didn't it vanish long ago, if this rate of mass loss is correct? How has it lasted for 4.5 billion years?
Click to expand...
With the current distance, velocity, and orbit, what you said is correct. But when the Earth tends to break out of its orbit, it actually increases in mass by absorbing gases, which hinders the disruption of orbital stability — in other words, NKTg₂ becomes negative, and mass increases.
 
TheNKTLaw said:
the Earth tends to break out of its orbit,
Click to expand...
And it does this, does it?

Got any evidence that Earth tends to "break out of its orbit"?

TheNKTLaw said:
it actually increases in mass by absorbing gases,
Click to expand...
OK, so all that stuff about Earth losing mass is ... retracted?

How does a planet "absorb gases"?


This is getting increasingly bizarre. Each post of NKTs reveals a new unevidenced assertion about planetary and orbital mechanics that his increasingly implausible idea needs to support it.

Now, it seems, Earth routinely breaks out of its orbit.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Which has nothing to do with GRACE-FO.

So far, your entire idea rests on a premise that is not shown to be true.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why I had to use experimentation to demonstrate it. I only needed the input data of position (x) and velocity (v) to accurately simulate the orbits and interpolate the planetary masses.
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK, so all that stuff about Earth losing mass is ... retracted?

How does a planet "absorb gases"?


This is getting increasingly bizarre. Each post of NKTs reveals a new unevidenced assertion about planetary and orbital mechanics that his increasingly implausible idea needs to support it.

Now, it seems, Earth routinely breaks out of its orbit.
Click to expand...
I haven’t retracted the idea that Earth can lose mass — on the contrary, I’m using actual experimental data to verify it. The notion that a planet can “absorb gases” is not unreasonable: gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn are known to capture material from their surroundings, even from the Sun in certain exceptional cases.


I understand that what I’m presenting might go against conventional knowledge, and that’s exactly why I rely on real NASA data (position x and velocity v) to simulate orbital motion and interpolate mass — not just speculate.


As for “Earth breaking out of its orbit,” I’m not making an absolute claim. The conclusion comes from interpolation based on observed data, which suggests that planetary orbits might not be as fixed as we usually assume. I’d be happy to share the model and dataset if you're interested in verifying it
 
TheNKTLaw said:
That's exactly why I had to use experimentation to demonstrate it. I only needed the input data of position (x) and velocity (v) to accurately simulate the orbits and interpolate the planetary masses.
Click to expand...
You're not showing that your data - or your ideas - have anything to do with the real world.
 
Last edited:
TheNKTLaw said:
I haven’t retracted the idea that Earth can lose mass — on the contrary, I’m using actual experimental data to verify it.
Click to expand...
Simulations are not data. Your simulations will do what you tell them to do, based on your assumptions.

TheNKTLaw said:
The notion that a planet can “absorb gases” is not unreasonable:
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was unreasonable. But you're assuming. You're assuming how much it's absorbing; you're assuming a lot of things.
So your NKT Law idea is based on your own assumptions. That's not how laws work.


TheNKTLaw said:
I understand that what I’m presenting might go against conventional knowledge, and that’s exactly why I rely on real NASA data (position x and velocity v) to simulate orbital motion and interpolate mass — not just speculate.
Click to expand...
Your simulation is based on your own assumptions. Therefore, so is your Law.


TheNKTLaw said:
As for “Earth breaking out of its orbit,” I’m not making an absolute claim. The conclusion comes from interpolation based on observed data, which suggests that planetary orbits might not be as fixed as we usually assume.
Click to expand...
"Might not be as fixed as we assume" is a far cry from "breaking out of its orbit".

You are now talking about planetary migration in a multi-planet system, which is a far cry from your idea that Earth can wander from its orbit on its own recognizance.

TheNKTLaw said:
I’d be happy to share the model and dataset if you're interested in verifying it
Click to expand...
Well, I have been asking you to post your data since post one...
 
DaveC426913 said:
Simulations are not data. Your simulations will do what you tell them to do, based on your assumptions.


I didn't say it was unreasonable. But you're assuming. You're assuming how much it's absorbing; you're assuming a lot of things.
So your NKT Law idea is based on your own assumptions. That's not how laws work.



Your simulation is based on your own assumptions. Therefore, so is your Law.



"Might not be as fixed as we assume" is a far cry from "breaking out of its orbit".

You are now talking about planetary migration in a multi-planet system, which is a far cry from your idea that Earth can wander from its orbit on its own recognizance.


Well, I have been asking you to post your data since post one...
Click to expand...
У меня есть несколько вопросов:
1. Что произойдёт с солнечной системой, если Земля внезапно исчезнет(например, разлетится на куски в результате взрывов)?
2. Как изменятся орбиты оставшихся планет?
3. Как изменится галактика, в результате изменений в солнечной системе?
4. Можно ли считать, что планета сошла с орбиты "сама по себе", если она сошла с орбиты, или разлетелась на обломки, в результате техногенной катастрофы, созданной людьми?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top