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

[DaveC426913]

We have thrown some junk into space, so technically the planet has lost land mass!

Even while meteors fall on our heads - about 50 tons a year.

 

[TheNKTLaw]

Simulations are not data. Your simulations will do what you tell them to do, based on your assumptions.

I use publicly available NASA data to reproduce the experiment. Anyone can access NASA’s website to download the data and verify the results.

 

[TheNKTLaw]

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.

It’s true that every theoretical model begins with assumptions — that’s how all physical laws are formed. However, in the NKTg Law, these are not arbitrary assumptions; they are quantifiable parameters that can be measured and tested.


The “absorption” you mention corresponds directly to measurable quantities such as the rate of mass change (dm/dt) and momentum (p = m·v). The law defines their relationship clearly: NKTg₂ = (dm/dt)·p. That means we can verify it experimentally — if dm/dt and p are known, the resulting effect can be predicted and compared to observation.


Therefore, the NKTg Law is not built on personal assumptions but on testable relationships between measurable physical quantities. That is how physical laws work — they start from hypotheses, become mathematical expressions, and are validated (or refuted) by experiment.


In other words, NKTg turns assumptions into measurable predictions. That’s exactly the scientific method.

 

[TheNKTLaw]

"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.

It’s true that planetary migration is typically discussed in multi-body systems, but the key principle of the NKTg Law is that no body is ever perfectly isolated or dynamically fixed. Even a single planet’s orbit is maintained through a balance of forces and continuous energy exchange — solar radiation, mass variation, and internal energy redistribution all contribute to slight but measurable perturbations.


The NKTg Law extends this by quantifying how variations in inertia (via dm/dt and p) influence a body’s dynamic equilibrium. In this view, “wandering” doesn’t mean a sudden orbital escape, but a gradual, self-consistent adjustment of orbital parameters as the planet’s mass–momentum balance evolves.


So, the idea that Earth’s orbit might not be perfectly fixed isn’t equivalent to claiming it will suddenly “break free.” It simply recognizes that even within a single-body context, small cumulative changes in inertia can lead to long-term orbital drift — a concept consistent with both celestial mechanics and the NKTg framework.

 

[TheNKTLaw]

Well, I have been asking you to post your data since post one...

The data is already included in my experimental post — it’s the dataset I obtained from NASA, not something I created myself.

 

[TheNKTLaw]

I appreciate everyone’s feedback, even the opposing views on the NKTg Law. I haven’t been able to respond promptly lately because I’ve been developing the NKTg Law project, which has now been integrated into robotics and dynamics source code.

Since this is a physics forum, I can’t post the NKTg Law source code here to avoid being flagged as spam.

 

[Pinball1970]

in the NKTg Law

It's not a law, it's something you made up that has not stood up to scrutiny.

 

[exchemist]

It’s true that every theoretical model begins with assumptions — that’s how all physical laws are formed. However, in the NKTg Law, these are not arbitrary assumptions; they are quantifiable parameters that can be measured and tested.


The “absorption” you mention corresponds directly to measurable quantities such as the rate of mass change (dm/dt) and momentum (p = m·v). The law defines their relationship clearly: NKTg₂ = (dm/dt)·p. That means we can verify it experimentally — if dm/dt and p are known, the resulting effect can be predicted and compared to observation.


Therefore, the NKTg Law is not built on personal assumptions but on testable relationships between measurable physical quantities. That is how physical laws work — they start from hypotheses, become mathematical expressions, and are validated (or refuted) by experiment.


In other words, NKTg turns assumptions into measurable predictions. That’s exactly the scientific method.

If you had a real theory, you would by now have answered the earlier questions people put to you. Instead, all you do is use AI to churn a load of bullshit related to figures on planetary motion.

If you had a new law of mechanics, you would be able to show how it can be applied to simple scenarios like the one I suggested, of the ball being dropped from a tower. You never answered that, in spite of my repeated reminders.

It seems clear you have no theory, just a single-minded fixation on some planetary data. Whereas a theory of mechanics, if this is what you claim it to be, has to apply not just to the planets but to everything.

You seem to be just another crank.

 

[Pinball1970]

If you had a real theory, you would by now have answered the earlier questions people put to you. Instead, all you do is use AI to churn a load of bullshit related to figures on planetary motion.

If you had a new law of mechanics, you would be able to show how it can be applied to simple scenarios like the one I suggested, of the ball being dropped from a tower. You never answered that, in spite of my repeated reminders.

It seems clear you have no theory, just a single-minded fixation on some planetary data. Whereas a theory of mechanics, if this is what you claim it to be, has to apply not just to the planets but to everything.

You seem to be just another crank.
View attachment 7106

Yep, he answered questions on science. Net like that too. Botshit