The following information is based upon an article that aimed to explain quantum mechanics to engineers. In the process of teaching basic QM concepts and considerations, the article takes a detour and begins to redefine certain standard units.
By the end of the article, there is a functional claim of unification of most of the major elements in current physics.
The article is located here:
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/23/12355330-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-one
As a very brief overview, the author begins with redefining voltage in terms of Elementary Charge, rather than the Volt. He then progresses through the various formula that define the Volt and converts each of the to Elementary Charge. He then uses this to prove that the Volt is Elementary Charge.
From here, he begins to use the mathematical relationships to redefine every SI Unit as Elementary Charge. In effect, he began unifying physics employing concepts such as "transforms", "mechanisms" and "frames of reference".
There are some notes in the comments section that relate to points made in the article, that some people have questioned. So, if you encounter something you feel is wrong, note it and see if it has been addressed in the comments section.
If not, could you please post it here.
This additional note has just been posted by the author.
This is a very important note about this work, so pay attention.
After careful consideration I have realized why this works. In physics, definitions are based upon the properties of a given unit. This analysis is based upon the composition of matter and forces.
This is why it unifies, each SI is "composed" of the same thing, but each SI unit denotes a different set of "properties".
This is very similar to the relationship between elements and sub-atomic particles.
It does make things a little more clear.
QUOTE
This is a very important note about this work, so pay attention.
After careful consideration I have realized why this works. In physics, definitions are based upon the properties of a given unit. This analysis is based upon the composition of matter and forces.
This is why it unifies, each SI is "composed" of the same thing, but each SI unit denotes a different set of "properties".
This is very similar to the relationship between elements and sub-atomic particles.
It does make things a little more clear.
And how does this theory predict anything?
That't good stuff.
Grand Unification Theory? It isn't there yet.
Could maybe lead somewhere though.
I will have to apply it to my Einstein Ohms/Watts law transforms and see what comes out.
Grand Unification Theory? It isn't there yet.
Could maybe lead somewhere though.
I will have to apply it to my Einstein Ohms/Watts law transforms and see what comes out.
I look at electrons as dispositions of fields. Charge is more like double-duty dipole dip, than magic mystery monopole goop. In fact I consider charge per se to be an illusion. I guess I can say I see it as quantization of divergence.
This should interest everyone. Part 2 of this series was released today and the author clarifies his position on V=I when R=0 in the formula V=IR.
This should blow your socks off...
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/25/12402939-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-two?preview=true
This should blow your socks off...
QUOTE
V = I
Let's begin this article by addressing an issue that caused the most headaches for quite a few engineers. The claim that when R = 0, then V = I.
Is this correct?
If you had read the comments in the last article, I pointed out that if R = 0 it would not exist. Unlike mathematics, which would define this value as zero, in reality there is no such thing as zero. Zero is an imaginary construct, a mathematical phantom. In an equation such as V = IR, if any element is zero it no longer has a role in the relationship. Consider this:
V = 0A x 1Ohm
In this "classical" equation we would say that no current flowing across a resistor of 1 Ohm produces no voltage drop. Now consider this modified equation:
V = 1Ohm
This follows the same logic as V = I. The result tells us that there is a voltage drop of 1 Volt across the resistor. This value is the "intrinsic" voltage drop which exists independently of flowing current. It is the same voltage drop that would be experienced with a 1 Amp current flowing through it.
To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:
E = MC^2
This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero?
E = 0 x c^2
The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy. A photon is the perfect example. Now, I know the first argument to appear will be "but this is the Mass-Energy equivalence". The problem is that this formula is not restricted to that, nor is this formula complete/accurate. The full formula would include matter without Mass as they are also factors of E. In such an equation, if Mass were allowed to have a zero value, E would not reflect the energy of the matter without Mass.
That is certainly food for thought.
Let's look at a different equation and check if this reveals anything. We will examine the formula for speed:
Speed = Distance / Time
In classical mathematics, if there was zero distance then this formula would not make sense, however, let's drop Distance from the formula and see what happens:
Speed (e/s) = Time (e/s)
1 e/s = 1 e/s
It becomes clearer what we are looking at. Even though there is no distance, there is still Energy in Time and, as a result, there is also Energy in speed. The output of the formula is showing us the Energy, but not what form it is taking. This must be derived from the units on the right-hand side of the equation.
If we now think of the equality operator an addition operator, we can sum both sides. Thus, the formula now states that the total energy is 2 e/s.
At this point I need to take a detour an explain something fundamental. Sometimes e/s can refer to independent particles, sometimes a collection, a field, a photon, a polarity, energy, etc. It is DELIBERATELY ambiguous, or "uncertain".
So, in this case we know we are talking about particles, thus we can define 2 e/s as two particles of Time. This is interpreted as "two particles and two units of time is equal to 2 e/s". Thus, we can state that one particle of time is 1 e/s. We will prove this another way later in this article.
Let us now return to the notion that V = I when R = 0. If we look to our speed formula as a reference, V=I is telling us that there is additional Energy equal to the amount of Amps, not only this but that additional Energy is Amps.
Let's assume I = 5 which implies there are 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 electrons per second. V = I is now telling us there are twice this number and twice the number of seconds. Obviously, we cannot have two seconds in one second, unless we are being told that the charge carriers are moving in pairs.
In condensed matter physics, this is known as a Cooper Pair, BCS pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair
I know what you are thinking, "but this shouldn't work"...
I'll forward your complaint to the managers of reality and demand that they obey our imaginary concepts in mathematics.
So, in this context we need a new operator that denotes this new function. This will be the ? symbol:
V ? I
I will call it Tao-summation-addition and it means to sum the equivalences. This name will make sense at the end of the article. From here we divide by time to reveal the number of particles. We have seen that this works with single particles and bound particles, there will most certainly be other ways to interpret the function of the operator depending on the types involved, but I am still working on this. Its function is to replace the notion of zero in roles where values must be conserved.
So, now we have a solid explanation of the discovery and assertions of the first article. Due to the ambiguity, it was very unclear what we were looking at and it was initially interpreted as being a voltage. The key, I have found, is to cross-reference everything with established science and ensure that you have the correct interpretation.
Let's begin this article by addressing an issue that caused the most headaches for quite a few engineers. The claim that when R = 0, then V = I.
Is this correct?
If you had read the comments in the last article, I pointed out that if R = 0 it would not exist. Unlike mathematics, which would define this value as zero, in reality there is no such thing as zero. Zero is an imaginary construct, a mathematical phantom. In an equation such as V = IR, if any element is zero it no longer has a role in the relationship. Consider this:
V = 0A x 1Ohm
In this "classical" equation we would say that no current flowing across a resistor of 1 Ohm produces no voltage drop. Now consider this modified equation:
V = 1Ohm
This follows the same logic as V = I. The result tells us that there is a voltage drop of 1 Volt across the resistor. This value is the "intrinsic" voltage drop which exists independently of flowing current. It is the same voltage drop that would be experienced with a 1 Amp current flowing through it.
To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:
E = MC^2
This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero?
E = 0 x c^2
The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy. A photon is the perfect example. Now, I know the first argument to appear will be "but this is the Mass-Energy equivalence". The problem is that this formula is not restricted to that, nor is this formula complete/accurate. The full formula would include matter without Mass as they are also factors of E. In such an equation, if Mass were allowed to have a zero value, E would not reflect the energy of the matter without Mass.
That is certainly food for thought.
Let's look at a different equation and check if this reveals anything. We will examine the formula for speed:
Speed = Distance / Time
In classical mathematics, if there was zero distance then this formula would not make sense, however, let's drop Distance from the formula and see what happens:
Speed (e/s) = Time (e/s)
1 e/s = 1 e/s
It becomes clearer what we are looking at. Even though there is no distance, there is still Energy in Time and, as a result, there is also Energy in speed. The output of the formula is showing us the Energy, but not what form it is taking. This must be derived from the units on the right-hand side of the equation.
If we now think of the equality operator an addition operator, we can sum both sides. Thus, the formula now states that the total energy is 2 e/s.
At this point I need to take a detour an explain something fundamental. Sometimes e/s can refer to independent particles, sometimes a collection, a field, a photon, a polarity, energy, etc. It is DELIBERATELY ambiguous, or "uncertain".
So, in this case we know we are talking about particles, thus we can define 2 e/s as two particles of Time. This is interpreted as "two particles and two units of time is equal to 2 e/s". Thus, we can state that one particle of time is 1 e/s. We will prove this another way later in this article.
Let us now return to the notion that V = I when R = 0. If we look to our speed formula as a reference, V=I is telling us that there is additional Energy equal to the amount of Amps, not only this but that additional Energy is Amps.
Let's assume I = 5 which implies there are 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 electrons per second. V = I is now telling us there are twice this number and twice the number of seconds. Obviously, we cannot have two seconds in one second, unless we are being told that the charge carriers are moving in pairs.
In condensed matter physics, this is known as a Cooper Pair, BCS pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair
I know what you are thinking, "but this shouldn't work"...
I'll forward your complaint to the managers of reality and demand that they obey our imaginary concepts in mathematics.
So, in this context we need a new operator that denotes this new function. This will be the ? symbol:
V ? I
I will call it Tao-summation-addition and it means to sum the equivalences. This name will make sense at the end of the article. From here we divide by time to reveal the number of particles. We have seen that this works with single particles and bound particles, there will most certainly be other ways to interpret the function of the operator depending on the types involved, but I am still working on this. Its function is to replace the notion of zero in roles where values must be conserved.
So, now we have a solid explanation of the discovery and assertions of the first article. Due to the ambiguity, it was very unclear what we were looking at and it was initially interpreted as being a voltage. The key, I have found, is to cross-reference everything with established science and ensure that you have the correct interpretation.
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/25/12402939-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-two?preview=true
With it so far I think. However, I do think he needs better way to denote which (e/s) he is talking about.
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform?
1-SQRT V^2/C^2
I'll look closer when I get a chance.
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform?
1-SQRT V^2/C^2
I'll look closer when I get a chance.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Jun 27 2012, 09:04 PM)
With it so far I think. However, I do think he needs better way to denote which (e/s) he is talking about.
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform?
1-SQRT V^2/C^2
I'll look closer when I get a chance.
Read the rest of the article, this is only from the first part. He is introducing a new form of mathematics, the idea is that e/s remains undefined or uncertain to reflect the nature of the quantum universe.
At the end of the article he names the new mathematics as "Tao Mathematics, the language of uncertainty" and defines e/s as the Tao.
His work is predicting an expanding universe, that the universe is composed of anti-matter and matter, defines negative energy, negative mass, expected symmetry breaking, defines the "Mass-Current-SpaceTime" equivalence, explains some of the missing mass in galactic rotation, defines the velocity of light and time as forms of resistance, indicates the electron is not fundamental, provides an explanation for inflation and the mechanism, predicts dark energy, demonstrates either the source or factor in Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, defines negative resistance, negative distance(space-time), quantizes space-time and predicts latent fields/forces and particles.
It is very easy to follow once you get your head around the new mathematics.
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform?
1-SQRT V^2/C^2
I'll look closer when I get a chance.
Read the rest of the article, this is only from the first part. He is introducing a new form of mathematics, the idea is that e/s remains undefined or uncertain to reflect the nature of the quantum universe.
At the end of the article he names the new mathematics as "Tao Mathematics, the language of uncertainty" and defines e/s as the Tao.
His work is predicting an expanding universe, that the universe is composed of anti-matter and matter, defines negative energy, negative mass, expected symmetry breaking, defines the "Mass-Current-SpaceTime" equivalence, explains some of the missing mass in galactic rotation, defines the velocity of light and time as forms of resistance, indicates the electron is not fundamental, provides an explanation for inflation and the mechanism, predicts dark energy, demonstrates either the source or factor in Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, defines negative resistance, negative distance(space-time), quantizes space-time and predicts latent fields/forces and particles.
It is very easy to follow once you get your head around the new mathematics.
I am impressed by the minds I see here. I am very busy but shall read as I can. <<<Now if you think my metaphors are a mess, imagine me with my blind keyboard player friend Brett, cracking the hell up when he said, yes I see.>>>
Sorry for the late reply guys, really up to my eyes in it at the minute.
And how does this theory predict anything?
Take a look at the reply to Ed Wood, there is a full list of what is emerging so far.
Take a look at the reply to Ed Wood, there is a full list of what is emerging so far.
I look at electrons as dispositions of fields. Charge is more like double-duty dipole dip, than magic mystery monopole goop. In fact I consider charge per se to be an illusion. I guess I can say I see it as quantization of divergence.
Albers, that is really interesting. DeepThought has speculated that Charge may in fact be an illusion and energy is being expended in its creation. Have a read and tell me what you think.
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform?
1-SQRT V^2/C^2
Ed, as far as I can see DeepThought is getting ready to begin the integration of General Relativity with quantum mechanics. No doubt it will be done then. I'm sure he needs to correct a lot of formulas for this, so we should expect maybe a few more parts of this series to cover conversions and analysis of formula. This should give him the groundwork from which to begin on the merger.
Based upon what he has said so far, I'm beginning to see Lorentz in different terms.
Try it for yourself.
QUOTE
And how does this theory predict anything?
Take a look at the reply to Ed Wood, there is a full list of what is emerging so far.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And how does this theory predict anything? |
Take a look at the reply to Ed Wood, there is a full list of what is emerging so far.
I look at electrons as dispositions of fields. Charge is more like double-duty dipole dip, than magic mystery monopole goop. In fact I consider charge per se to be an illusion. I guess I can say I see it as quantization of divergence.
Albers, that is really interesting. DeepThought has speculated that Charge may in fact be an illusion and energy is being expended in its creation. Have a read and tell me what you think.
QUOTE
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform?
1-SQRT V^2/C^2
Ed, as far as I can see DeepThought is getting ready to begin the integration of General Relativity with quantum mechanics. No doubt it will be done then. I'm sure he needs to correct a lot of formulas for this, so we should expect maybe a few more parts of this series to cover conversions and analysis of formula. This should give him the groundwork from which to begin on the merger.
Based upon what he has said so far, I'm beginning to see Lorentz in different terms.
Try it for yourself.
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 27 2012, 07:53 PM)
This should interest everyone. Part 2 of this series was released today and the author clarifies his position on V=I when R=0 in the formula V=IR.
This should blow your socks off...
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/25/12402939-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-two?preview=true
The following is why I wouldn't read past this comment.
"To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:
E = MC^2
This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero?
E = 0 x c^2
The formula tells us that no Energy would exist."
E=M is the special circumstance when the INVARIANT mass is in it's center of momentum rest frame. It's physics not arithmetic. c^2 is the conversion factor from conventional units to geometric units so it just means
E=0, IE 0 energy for this case.
In geometric units this is the relativistic energy equation
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
And you can review how it's derived from the geometry of spacetime starting at section 4 The Principle of Extremal Aging.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf
So when m = 0, E^2 = p^2, when m = 0 and p = 0 then E = 0.
His picking the special case of the energy equation for his example means he doesn't know what he's talking about.
This should blow your socks off...
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/25/12402939-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-two?preview=true
The following is why I wouldn't read past this comment.
"To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:
E = MC^2
This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero?
E = 0 x c^2
The formula tells us that no Energy would exist."
E=M is the special circumstance when the INVARIANT mass is in it's center of momentum rest frame. It's physics not arithmetic. c^2 is the conversion factor from conventional units to geometric units so it just means
E=0, IE 0 energy for this case.
In geometric units this is the relativistic energy equation
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
And you can review how it's derived from the geometry of spacetime starting at section 4 The Principle of Extremal Aging.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf
So when m = 0, E^2 = p^2, when m = 0 and p = 0 then E = 0.
His picking the special case of the energy equation for his example means he doesn't know what he's talking about.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 27 2012, 10:50 PM)
The following is why I wouldn't read past this comment.
"To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:
E = MC^2
This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero?
E = 0 x c^2
The formula tells us that no Energy would exist."
E=M is the special circumstance when the INVARIANT mass is in it's center of momentum rest frame. It's physics not arithmetic. c^2 is the conversion factor from conventional units to geometric units so it just means
E=0, IE 0 energy for this case.
In geometric units this is the relativistic energy equation
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
And you can review how it's derived from the geometry of spacetime starting at section 4 The Principle of Extremal Aging.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf
So when m = 0, E^2 = p^2, when m = 0 and p = 0 then E = 0.
His picking the special case of the energy equation for his example means he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Interesting, I think his point is that such equations cannot exist independently of the entire universe. As such, if any element were zero then the entire formula would predict no energy.
Which is obviously incorrect.
The current solution is the "special cases" which he is arguing is nonsense.
So, I think he does understand it and you haven't.
"To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:
E = MC^2
This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero?
E = 0 x c^2
The formula tells us that no Energy would exist."
E=M is the special circumstance when the INVARIANT mass is in it's center of momentum rest frame. It's physics not arithmetic. c^2 is the conversion factor from conventional units to geometric units so it just means
E=0, IE 0 energy for this case.
In geometric units this is the relativistic energy equation
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
And you can review how it's derived from the geometry of spacetime starting at section 4 The Principle of Extremal Aging.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf
So when m = 0, E^2 = p^2, when m = 0 and p = 0 then E = 0.
His picking the special case of the energy equation for his example means he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Interesting, I think his point is that such equations cannot exist independently of the entire universe. As such, if any element were zero then the entire formula would predict no energy.
Which is obviously incorrect.
The current solution is the "special cases" which he is arguing is nonsense.
So, I think he does understand it and you haven't.
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 27 2012, 11:09 PM)
Interesting, I think his point is that such equations cannot exist independently of the entire universe. As such, if any element were zero then the entire formula would predict no energy.
Which is obviously incorrect.
The current solution is the "special cases" which he is arguing is nonsense.
So, I think he does understand it and you haven't.
I think you don't have much knowledge of physics. It's not just interesting. The relativistic energy equation is an empirical fact. You're just a crackpot nonsense machine. It's pretty stupid to try and prop yourself up via sock puppet.
The next thing you said was
"The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy."
Dumbfuk.
Which is obviously incorrect.
The current solution is the "special cases" which he is arguing is nonsense.
So, I think he does understand it and you haven't.
I think you don't have much knowledge of physics. It's not just interesting. The relativistic energy equation is an empirical fact. You're just a crackpot nonsense machine. It's pretty stupid to try and prop yourself up via sock puppet.
The next thing you said was
"The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy."
Dumbfuk.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 27 2012, 11:25 PM)
I think you don't have much knowledge of physics. It's not just interesting. The relativistic energy equation is an empirical fact. You're just a crackpot nonsense machine. It's pretty stupid to try and prop yourself up via sock puppet.
The next thing you said was
"The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy."
Dumbfuk.
I'm sure it is...
Why don't you read the article, do the math, note the comments...and then comment on it?
Stomping your feet and throwing a fit because you have read a partial comment that seems to refute something you think you know is not science.
There are very good reasons why the equation is wrong, it is detailed in the article and multiple reasons are provided.
Have a go, what have you got to lose...
The next thing you said was
"The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy."
Dumbfuk.
I'm sure it is...
Why don't you read the article, do the math, note the comments...and then comment on it?
Stomping your feet and throwing a fit because you have read a partial comment that seems to refute something you think you know is not science.
There are very good reasons why the equation is wrong, it is detailed in the article and multiple reasons are provided.
Have a go, what have you got to lose...
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 27 2012, 11:38 PM)
I'm sure it is...
Why don't you read the article, do the math, note the comments...and then comment on it?
Stomping your feet and throwing a fit because you have read a partial comment that seems to refute something you think you know is not science.
There are very good reasons why the equation is wrong, it is detailed in the article and multiple reasons are provided.
Have a go, what have you got to lose...
You're a nitwit crank who doesn't know jack about relativity. So you should shut up about the equation being wrong. If the equation was wrong there wouldn't be any nuclear weapons that work. Or any particle experiments to prove the equation correct 'run after run'. Science isn't about crank ideas and bullshit proofs.
Why don't you read the article, do the math, note the comments...and then comment on it?
Stomping your feet and throwing a fit because you have read a partial comment that seems to refute something you think you know is not science.
There are very good reasons why the equation is wrong, it is detailed in the article and multiple reasons are provided.
Have a go, what have you got to lose...
You're a nitwit crank who doesn't know jack about relativity. So you should shut up about the equation being wrong. If the equation was wrong there wouldn't be any nuclear weapons that work. Or any particle experiments to prove the equation correct 'run after run'. Science isn't about crank ideas and bullshit proofs.
With charge and electric field, the devil is in the divergence.
Someplace Richard Feynman wrote (closely): "One must apprehend all that has been accomplished, and you may not contravene the successful ways we have descrfibed Nature. Then you may sit in this straitjacket, and let a new set of thoughts blossom. You may put it on the table."
I repair to my dunce corner.
I repair to my dunce corner.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 28 2012, 12:41 AM)
You're a nitwit crank who doesn't know jack about relativity. So you should shut up about the equation being wrong. If the equation was wrong there wouldn't be any nuclear weapons that work. Or any particle experiments to prove the equation correct 'run after run'. Science isn't about crank ideas and bullshit proofs.
So, you didn't bother reading the material?
Why even comment? How dumb can you get?
If you had read the material you would know that the equation needs to be amended. If you really understood anything about science and a unified perspective, you would know this to be true.
The answer is in simple math. If we define everything in the Universe as E, then everything in it needs to be factors of E. This would lead to one giant equation that equal E.
If any of those values were zero, at any point, the sum total of Energy would be zero and that's just nonsense.
Thus, we need to dump the mathematical notion of zero and replace it with something else.
By the way, did you even do the math in the first part?
I did and guess what, I found an answer to V=IR that shows electrons traveling in pairs, not a zero voltage and no change in amps.
This guys formulas work and match experimental science. That is the acid test.
So, you didn't bother reading the material?
Why even comment? How dumb can you get?
If you had read the material you would know that the equation needs to be amended. If you really understood anything about science and a unified perspective, you would know this to be true.
The answer is in simple math. If we define everything in the Universe as E, then everything in it needs to be factors of E. This would lead to one giant equation that equal E.
If any of those values were zero, at any point, the sum total of Energy would be zero and that's just nonsense.
Thus, we need to dump the mathematical notion of zero and replace it with something else.
By the way, did you even do the math in the first part?
I did and guess what, I found an answer to V=IR that shows electrons traveling in pairs, not a zero voltage and no change in amps.
This guys formulas work and match experimental science. That is the acid test.
This material was updated. Certain groups of paragraphs have been replaced by a link to an additional note. I have included the modified text and the additional note. It should be a lot clearer now.
V = I
Let's begin this article by addressing an issue that caused the most headaches for quite a few engineers. The claim that when R = 0, then V = I.
Is this correct?
If you had read the comments in the last article, I pointed out that if R = 0 it would not exist. Unlike mathematics, which would define this value as zero, in reality there is no such thing as zero. Zero is an imaginary construct, a mathematical phantom. In an equation such as V = IR, if any element is zero it no longer has a role in the relationship. Consider this:
V = 0A x 1Ohm
In this "classical" equation we would say that no current flowing across a resistor of 1 Ohm produces no voltage drop. Now consider this modified equation:
V = 1Ohm
This follows the same logic as V = I. The result tells us that there is a voltage drop of 1 Volt across the resistor. This value is the "intrinsic" voltage drop which exists independently of flowing current. It is the same voltage drop that would be experienced with a 1 Amp current flowing through it.
To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:
E = MC^2
This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero?
E = 0 x c^2
The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy. A photon is the perfect example. Now, I know the first argument to appear will be "but this is the Mass-Energy equivalence". The problem is that this formula is not restricted to that, nor is this formula complete/accurate. The full formula would include matter without Mass as they are also factors of E. In such an equation, if Mass were allowed to have a zero value, E would not reflect the energy of the matter without Mass.
That is certainly food for thought.
Let's look at a different equation and check if this reveals anything. We will examine the formula for speed:
Speed = Distance / Time
In classical mathematics, if there was zero distance then this formula would not make sense, however, let's drop Distance from the formula and see what happens:
Speed (e/s) = Time (e/s)
1 e/s = 1 e/s
It becomes clearer what we are looking at. Even though there is no distance, there is still Energy in Time and, as a result, there is also Energy in speed. The output of the formula is showing us the Energy, but not what form it is taking. This must be derived from the units on the right-hand side of the equation.
If we now think of the equality operator an addition operator, we can sum both sides. Thus, the formula now states that the total energy is 2 e/s.
At this point I need to take a detour an explain something fundamental. Sometimes e/s can refer to independent particles, sometimes a collection, a field, a photon, a polarity, energy, etc. It is DELIBERATELY ambiguous, or "uncertain".
So, in this case we know we are talking about particles, thus we can define 2 e/s as two particles of Time. This is interpreted as "two particles and two units of time is equal to 2 e/s". Thus, we can state that one particle of time is 1 e/s. We will prove this another way later in this article.
(Note: This section has been replaced by notes in the comments due to developments in the theory. 28/06/12 - Refer to Additional Note 1)
In condensed matter physics, this is known as a Cooper Pair, BCS pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair
I know what you are thinking, "but this shouldn't work"...
I'll forward your complaint to the managers of reality and demand that they obey our imaginary concepts in mathematics.
So, in this context we need a new operator that denotes this new function. This will be the ? symbol:
V ?+= I
I will call it Tao-summation-addition and it means to sum the equivalences. This name will make sense at the end of the article.
(Note: This section has been replaced by notes in the comments due to developments in the theory. 28/06/12 - Refer to Additional Note 1)
Its function is to replace the notion of zero in roles where values must be conserved.
So, now we have a solid explanation of the discovery and assertions of the first article. Due to the ambiguity, it was very unclear what we were looking at and it was initially interpreted as being a voltage. The key, I have found, is to cross-reference everything with established science and ensure that you have the correct interpretation.
Additional note 1:
?=+
I will call it Tao-summation-addition and it means to sum the equivalences. This name will make sense at the end of the article.
Uncertainty is at the heart of this mathematics, thus the operators must also be uncertain. The ? denotes that it is Tao math and the operators after explain which options to use.
For example:
Speed (e/s) = Time (e/s)
1 e/s ?=+ 1 e/s
= 2 e/s ?- 1 e/s
= 1 e/s
We now have a "probability" of what the output means. Since we were defining Time we could say:
1. This is Energy in Time.
2. This is the number of number of particles in time.
In this case, both are true, but we could also claim this is equivilent to the Energy in speed (m/s) and it will also be accurate.
Now if we do the same for V = I only this time we change the operator (uncertain behavior means the formula changes at random) after the Tao-Summation-Addition:
V (e/s) = I (e/s)
31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s ?=+ 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 62,415,096,500,000,000,000 -e/s ?/ 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 2 e/s
This can denote either:
1. The amount of seconds happening within one second (i.e two currents together)
2. The number of particles bound together.
Both interpretations are valid and both lead to the conclusion that the electrons are traveling in pairs.
If we use a different operator we can arrive at an answer to a different problem, or a potential answer if we examie all variations.
V (e/s) = I (e/s)
31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s ?=+ 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 62,415,096,500,000,000,000 -e/s ?- 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s e/s
This can denote:
1. Half the current
2. The current if the electrons were not bound together
3. The current given by one half of the bound electrons
Now, you are probably saying, but we can do this with normal math. The problem is that we need to eliminate the concept of zero.
Further, if you are unaware of an expected value, you can cycle through the operators providing you with a list of potential values. Some may be junk, some may denote undiscovered relationships and others will be answers to the value you are seeking. Thus formulas in physics become more algorithmic.
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform?
1-SQRT V^2/C^2
Ed, I just stopped by DeepThought's site and it he's beginning to look at the Tao-Summation-Addition operator as a form of the Lorentz transform.
Ed, I just stopped by DeepThought's site and it he's beginning to look at the Tao-Summation-Addition operator as a form of the Lorentz transform.
A quick note on the conservation of Energy. Read through the following equation:
1 e/s ?=+ 1 e/s
= 2 e/s
2 e/s ?- 1 e/s
= 1 e/s
or this one where I = 5Amps
V (e/s) = I (e/s)
31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s ?=+ 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 62,415,096,500,000,000,000 -e/s
62,415,096,500,000,000,000 -e/s ?- 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s e/s
When we use the Tao-Summation-Addition, are we saying that the Energy has suddenly doubled?
No, we are saying this is the same Energy, but from a different perspective. The addition is just a mathematical tool, not an actual increase in Energy. In this respect, apparent Energy at another point will be a Transform, or looking at the same thing from a different perspective. For a similar idea we can use frames of reference with EM fields, what is magnetic field to one observer can be an electric field to another.
This is the primary interpretation at present.
There is the possibility that the Energy we denote to a particular particle is only part of the story and additional Energy exists in other mechanisms that we do not readily identify with the source. I will keep checking this as I progress and see if the issue becomes any clearer.
It just occurred to me that this operator may be performing a Lorentz transformation.
More on this as it comes in...
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/27/12402939-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-two?threadId=3452345&commentId=67474651#c67474651
I think I have a problem with this bit. He needs to proof it with the math
because I can't get it to work.
I think I have a problem with this bit. He needs to proof it with the math
because I can't get it to work.
Ok, can you explain what your issue is, I can get it to work, so perhaps its just an interpretation thing.
I think I have a problem with this bit. He needs to proof it with the math
because I can't get it to work.
Ed, I think I understand where you are going wrong. Tell me if this is correct. We will use the electron as our example:
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
I assume you have done something like this to calculate 2 electrons
I assume you have done something like this to calculate 2 electrons
Electron
(3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s + 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s) * (1 e/s + 1 e/s) = 12,757,619,996,287,083,422,557,815.94128 e/s
which reduces to
6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s * 2 e/s = 12,757,619,996,287,083,422,557,815.94128 e/s
What you have noticed is that the equation does not balance and the conservation of energy is violated.
The secret is in what DeepThought states:
Do not make the mistake of trying use the equation for multiple particle, like two electrons, it will not work. Basically, the formula is restricted to a particular Charge for a given Mass, that is, a single particle. If you need to calculate multiple particles, then you need to repeat the formula.
So, now that we know that we can understand what we just did. We created a formula for a particle with twice the mass and double the charge of the electron. Such a particle does not exist.
The correct way to calculate two electrons is to repeat the formula, as such:
So, now that we know that we can understand what we just did. We created a formula for a particle with twice the mass and double the charge of the electron. Such a particle does not exist.
The correct way to calculate two electrons is to repeat the formula, as such:
Electron 1
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Electron 2
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Now we can sum the results and determine the total energy correctly. In this way, Energy is conserved.
QUOTE
V = I
Let's begin this article by addressing an issue that caused the most headaches for quite a few engineers. The claim that when R = 0, then V = I.
Is this correct?
If you had read the comments in the last article, I pointed out that if R = 0 it would not exist. Unlike mathematics, which would define this value as zero, in reality there is no such thing as zero. Zero is an imaginary construct, a mathematical phantom. In an equation such as V = IR, if any element is zero it no longer has a role in the relationship. Consider this:
V = 0A x 1Ohm
In this "classical" equation we would say that no current flowing across a resistor of 1 Ohm produces no voltage drop. Now consider this modified equation:
V = 1Ohm
This follows the same logic as V = I. The result tells us that there is a voltage drop of 1 Volt across the resistor. This value is the "intrinsic" voltage drop which exists independently of flowing current. It is the same voltage drop that would be experienced with a 1 Amp current flowing through it.
To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:
E = MC^2
This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero?
E = 0 x c^2
The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy. A photon is the perfect example. Now, I know the first argument to appear will be "but this is the Mass-Energy equivalence". The problem is that this formula is not restricted to that, nor is this formula complete/accurate. The full formula would include matter without Mass as they are also factors of E. In such an equation, if Mass were allowed to have a zero value, E would not reflect the energy of the matter without Mass.
That is certainly food for thought.
Let's look at a different equation and check if this reveals anything. We will examine the formula for speed:
Speed = Distance / Time
In classical mathematics, if there was zero distance then this formula would not make sense, however, let's drop Distance from the formula and see what happens:
Speed (e/s) = Time (e/s)
1 e/s = 1 e/s
It becomes clearer what we are looking at. Even though there is no distance, there is still Energy in Time and, as a result, there is also Energy in speed. The output of the formula is showing us the Energy, but not what form it is taking. This must be derived from the units on the right-hand side of the equation.
If we now think of the equality operator an addition operator, we can sum both sides. Thus, the formula now states that the total energy is 2 e/s.
At this point I need to take a detour an explain something fundamental. Sometimes e/s can refer to independent particles, sometimes a collection, a field, a photon, a polarity, energy, etc. It is DELIBERATELY ambiguous, or "uncertain".
So, in this case we know we are talking about particles, thus we can define 2 e/s as two particles of Time. This is interpreted as "two particles and two units of time is equal to 2 e/s". Thus, we can state that one particle of time is 1 e/s. We will prove this another way later in this article.
(Note: This section has been replaced by notes in the comments due to developments in the theory. 28/06/12 - Refer to Additional Note 1)
In condensed matter physics, this is known as a Cooper Pair, BCS pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair
I know what you are thinking, "but this shouldn't work"...
I'll forward your complaint to the managers of reality and demand that they obey our imaginary concepts in mathematics.
So, in this context we need a new operator that denotes this new function. This will be the ? symbol:
V ?+= I
I will call it Tao-summation-addition and it means to sum the equivalences. This name will make sense at the end of the article.
(Note: This section has been replaced by notes in the comments due to developments in the theory. 28/06/12 - Refer to Additional Note 1)
Its function is to replace the notion of zero in roles where values must be conserved.
So, now we have a solid explanation of the discovery and assertions of the first article. Due to the ambiguity, it was very unclear what we were looking at and it was initially interpreted as being a voltage. The key, I have found, is to cross-reference everything with established science and ensure that you have the correct interpretation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
V = I Let's begin this article by addressing an issue that caused the most headaches for quite a few engineers. The claim that when R = 0, then V = I. Is this correct? If you had read the comments in the last article, I pointed out that if R = 0 it would not exist. Unlike mathematics, which would define this value as zero, in reality there is no such thing as zero. Zero is an imaginary construct, a mathematical phantom. In an equation such as V = IR, if any element is zero it no longer has a role in the relationship. Consider this: V = 0A x 1Ohm In this "classical" equation we would say that no current flowing across a resistor of 1 Ohm produces no voltage drop. Now consider this modified equation: V = 1Ohm This follows the same logic as V = I. The result tells us that there is a voltage drop of 1 Volt across the resistor. This value is the "intrinsic" voltage drop which exists independently of flowing current. It is the same voltage drop that would be experienced with a 1 Amp current flowing through it. To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula: E = MC^2 This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR. What would happen if M were zero? E = 0 x c^2 The formula tells us that no Energy would exist. Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy. A photon is the perfect example. Now, I know the first argument to appear will be "but this is the Mass-Energy equivalence". The problem is that this formula is not restricted to that, nor is this formula complete/accurate. The full formula would include matter without Mass as they are also factors of E. In such an equation, if Mass were allowed to have a zero value, E would not reflect the energy of the matter without Mass. That is certainly food for thought. Let's look at a different equation and check if this reveals anything. We will examine the formula for speed: Speed = Distance / Time In classical mathematics, if there was zero distance then this formula would not make sense, however, let's drop Distance from the formula and see what happens: Speed (e/s) = Time (e/s) 1 e/s = 1 e/s It becomes clearer what we are looking at. Even though there is no distance, there is still Energy in Time and, as a result, there is also Energy in speed. The output of the formula is showing us the Energy, but not what form it is taking. This must be derived from the units on the right-hand side of the equation. If we now think of the equality operator an addition operator, we can sum both sides. Thus, the formula now states that the total energy is 2 e/s. At this point I need to take a detour an explain something fundamental. Sometimes e/s can refer to independent particles, sometimes a collection, a field, a photon, a polarity, energy, etc. It is DELIBERATELY ambiguous, or "uncertain". So, in this case we know we are talking about particles, thus we can define 2 e/s as two particles of Time. This is interpreted as "two particles and two units of time is equal to 2 e/s". Thus, we can state that one particle of time is 1 e/s. We will prove this another way later in this article. (Note: This section has been replaced by notes in the comments due to developments in the theory. 28/06/12 - Refer to Additional Note 1) In condensed matter physics, this is known as a Cooper Pair, BCS pair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair I know what you are thinking, "but this shouldn't work"... I'll forward your complaint to the managers of reality and demand that they obey our imaginary concepts in mathematics. So, in this context we need a new operator that denotes this new function. This will be the ? symbol: V ?+= I I will call it Tao-summation-addition and it means to sum the equivalences. This name will make sense at the end of the article. (Note: This section has been replaced by notes in the comments due to developments in the theory. 28/06/12 - Refer to Additional Note 1) Its function is to replace the notion of zero in roles where values must be conserved. So, now we have a solid explanation of the discovery and assertions of the first article. Due to the ambiguity, it was very unclear what we were looking at and it was initially interpreted as being a voltage. The key, I have found, is to cross-reference everything with established science and ensure that you have the correct interpretation. |
Additional note 1:
?=+
I will call it Tao-summation-addition and it means to sum the equivalences. This name will make sense at the end of the article.
Uncertainty is at the heart of this mathematics, thus the operators must also be uncertain. The ? denotes that it is Tao math and the operators after explain which options to use.
For example:
Speed (e/s) = Time (e/s)
1 e/s ?=+ 1 e/s
= 2 e/s ?- 1 e/s
= 1 e/s
We now have a "probability" of what the output means. Since we were defining Time we could say:
1. This is Energy in Time.
2. This is the number of number of particles in time.
In this case, both are true, but we could also claim this is equivilent to the Energy in speed (m/s) and it will also be accurate.
Now if we do the same for V = I only this time we change the operator (uncertain behavior means the formula changes at random) after the Tao-Summation-Addition:
V (e/s) = I (e/s)
31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s ?=+ 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 62,415,096,500,000,000,000 -e/s ?/ 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 2 e/s
This can denote either:
1. The amount of seconds happening within one second (i.e two currents together)
2. The number of particles bound together.
Both interpretations are valid and both lead to the conclusion that the electrons are traveling in pairs.
If we use a different operator we can arrive at an answer to a different problem, or a potential answer if we examie all variations.
V (e/s) = I (e/s)
31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s ?=+ 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 62,415,096,500,000,000,000 -e/s ?- 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s e/s
This can denote:
1. Half the current
2. The current if the electrons were not bound together
3. The current given by one half of the bound electrons
Now, you are probably saying, but we can do this with normal math. The problem is that we need to eliminate the concept of zero.
Further, if you are unaware of an expected value, you can cycle through the operators providing you with a list of potential values. Some may be junk, some may denote undiscovered relationships and others will be answers to the value you are seeking. Thus formulas in physics become more algorithmic.
There is a correction on DeepThought's page relating to the form of the equation. It looks like he is using a different way of writing equations and then translates them into standard math. At least that's my two cents. So, before you think the formulas are wrong, modify them as per this post.
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/27/12402939-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-two#c67471726
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/27/12402939-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-two#c67471726
QUOTE
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform?
1-SQRT V^2/C^2
Ed, I just stopped by DeepThought's site and it he's beginning to look at the Tao-Summation-Addition operator as a form of the Lorentz transform.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
When will he get to the bottom of the equation the Lorentz transform? 1-SQRT V^2/C^2 |
Ed, I just stopped by DeepThought's site and it he's beginning to look at the Tao-Summation-Addition operator as a form of the Lorentz transform.
A quick note on the conservation of Energy. Read through the following equation:
1 e/s ?=+ 1 e/s
= 2 e/s
2 e/s ?- 1 e/s
= 1 e/s
or this one where I = 5Amps
V (e/s) = I (e/s)
31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s ?=+ 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 62,415,096,500,000,000,000 -e/s
62,415,096,500,000,000,000 -e/s ?- 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s
= 31,207,548,250,000,000,000 -e/s e/s
When we use the Tao-Summation-Addition, are we saying that the Energy has suddenly doubled?
No, we are saying this is the same Energy, but from a different perspective. The addition is just a mathematical tool, not an actual increase in Energy. In this respect, apparent Energy at another point will be a Transform, or looking at the same thing from a different perspective. For a similar idea we can use frames of reference with EM fields, what is magnetic field to one observer can be an electric field to another.
This is the primary interpretation at present.
There is the possibility that the Energy we denote to a particular particle is only part of the story and additional Energy exists in other mechanisms that we do not readily identify with the source. I will keep checking this as I progress and see if the issue becomes any clearer.
QUOTE
It just occurred to me that this operator may be performing a Lorentz transformation.
More on this as it comes in...
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/27/12402939-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-two?threadId=3452345&commentId=67474651#c67474651
QUOTE
Now, this is very interesting. We know that the proton has a larger Mass than the electron. See here:
Electron Mass: 9.10938291×10−31 Kg
Proton Mass: 1.672621777×10−27 Kg
According to this formula, it states for a the amount of current in a given area is equal to the Mass. Well, let's rearrange the equation and calculate the amount of area that Mass with a particular Charge is equal to. Given that we are using a proton/electron as a reference, if Mass equals the Meter in e/s, then it has the same amount of energy in Joules and the relationship is valid.
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Proton
5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 * 1 e/s = 5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 e/s
Perfect, expressed in Joules this is:
Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J
Proton = 1.50327748414672853634174628e-10 J
Electron Mass: 9.10938291×10−31 Kg
Proton Mass: 1.672621777×10−27 Kg
According to this formula, it states for a the amount of current in a given area is equal to the Mass. Well, let's rearrange the equation and calculate the amount of area that Mass with a particular Charge is equal to. Given that we are using a proton/electron as a reference, if Mass equals the Meter in e/s, then it has the same amount of energy in Joules and the relationship is valid.
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Proton
5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 * 1 e/s = 5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 e/s
Perfect, expressed in Joules this is:
Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J
Proton = 1.50327748414672853634174628e-10 J
I think I have a problem with this bit. He needs to proof it with the math
because I can't get it to work.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Jun 28 2012, 01:46 PM)
I think I have a problem with this bit. He needs to proof it with the math
because I can't get it to work.
Ok, can you explain what your issue is, I can get it to work, so perhaps its just an interpretation thing.
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 27 2012, 09:13 PM)
If any of those values were zero, at any point, the sum total of Energy would be zero and that's just nonsense.
I guess you've never heard of the zero-energy universe hypothesis and how it figures into the inflationary period that followed the big bang.
I guess you've never heard of the zero-energy universe hypothesis and how it figures into the inflationary period that followed the big bang.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Jun 28 2012, 01:46 PM)
I think I have a problem with this bit. He needs to proof it with the math
because I can't get it to work.
Ed, I think I understand where you are going wrong. Tell me if this is correct. We will use the electron as our example:
QUOTE
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
I assume you have done something like this to calculate 2 electrons
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2) Electron 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s |
I assume you have done something like this to calculate 2 electrons
Electron
(3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s + 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s) * (1 e/s + 1 e/s) = 12,757,619,996,287,083,422,557,815.94128 e/s
which reduces to
6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s * 2 e/s = 12,757,619,996,287,083,422,557,815.94128 e/s
What you have noticed is that the equation does not balance and the conservation of energy is violated.
The secret is in what DeepThought states:
QUOTE
Do not make the mistake of trying use the equation for multiple particle, like two electrons, it will not work. Basically, the formula is restricted to a particular Charge for a given Mass, that is, a single particle. If you need to calculate multiple particles, then you need to repeat the formula.
So, now that we know that we can understand what we just did. We created a formula for a particle with twice the mass and double the charge of the electron. Such a particle does not exist.
The correct way to calculate two electrons is to repeat the formula, as such:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Do not make the mistake of trying use the equation for multiple particle, like two electrons, it will not work. Basically, the formula is restricted to a particular Charge for a given Mass, that is, a single particle. If you need to calculate multiple particles, then you need to repeat the formula. |
So, now that we know that we can understand what we just did. We created a formula for a particle with twice the mass and double the charge of the electron. Such a particle does not exist.
The correct way to calculate two electrons is to repeat the formula, as such:
Electron 1
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Electron 2
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Now we can sum the results and determine the total energy correctly. In this way, Energy is conserved.
Another way this formula would work is as follows:
Electron
(3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s + 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s) * 1 e/s = 6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s
which reduces to
6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s * 1 e/s = 6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s
What we are doing is doubling the Mass, which indicates two particles but we are also stating that the "charge per particle" remains the same.
This is the same as this:
What we are doing is doubling the Mass, which indicates two particles but we are also stating that the "charge per particle" remains the same.
This is the same as this:
Electron 1
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Electron 2
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
QUOTE
Electron
(3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s + 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s) * 1 e/s = 6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s
which reduces to
6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s * 1 e/s = 6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s
What we are doing is doubling the Mass, which indicates two particles but we are also stating that the "charge per particle" remains the same.
This is the same as this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Electron (3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s + 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s) * 1 e/s = 6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s which reduces to 6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s * 1 e/s = 6,378,809,998,143,541,711,278,907.97064 e/s |
What we are doing is doubling the Mass, which indicates two particles but we are also stating that the "charge per particle" remains the same.
This is the same as this:
Electron 1
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Electron 2
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
E in joules
E= MC^2
1 electron
E=Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J
Mass of electron
Electron Mass: 9.10938291×10−31 Kg
Speed of light C=299792458
E/M=C^2
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J/9.10938291×10−31 Kg=89875517873681764.000000000000001
SQRT 89875517873681764.000000000000001=299792458
That makes sense. The math works.
I think the problem is I am confused about how to convert each of these values to e/s Charge per second.
When I do the mathematical relationship should remain. I can't get it to work.
E= MC^2
1 electron
E=Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J
Mass of electron
Electron Mass: 9.10938291×10−31 Kg
Speed of light C=299792458
E/M=C^2
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J/9.10938291×10−31 Kg=89875517873681764.000000000000001
SQRT 89875517873681764.000000000000001=299792458
That makes sense. The math works.
I think the problem is I am confused about how to convert each of these values to e/s Charge per second.
When I do the mathematical relationship should remain. I can't get it to work.
Ed, I will reply to your post in one second.
DeepThought has amended the Mass-Current-SapceTime equivalence so that we can determine if its from a proton/electron. The modified formula is just a sign change, nothing major, it is as follows:
Additional Note 2:
The following equation must be modified to maintain the polarity of a Charge:
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 -e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Proton
5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 * 1 e/s = 5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 e/s
Note that we have introduced a negative sign in the unit. This allows us to rearrange the equation and obtain the correct values (i.e. determine electron/proton).
It also opens a new interpretation to the attraction between the proton and the electron. We can describe it in terms of a gradient that both particles experience. This concept is similar to the curvature of space due to Mass in General Relativity.
DeepThought has amended the Mass-Current-SapceTime equivalence so that we can determine if its from a proton/electron. The modified formula is just a sign change, nothing major, it is as follows:
QUOTE
Additional Note 2:
The following equation must be modified to maintain the polarity of a Charge:
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 -e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Proton
5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 * 1 e/s = 5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 e/s
Note that we have introduced a negative sign in the unit. This allows us to rearrange the equation and obtain the correct values (i.e. determine electron/proton).
It also opens a new interpretation to the attraction between the proton and the electron. We can describe it in terms of a gradient that both particles experience. This concept is similar to the curvature of space due to Mass in General Relativity.
Ed, this should help...let me know if there is anything I have missed.
E=Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J
This is the Energy of the Mass of the Electron and the equivalent Energy in terms of space-time (i.e. m/s).
Conversion to SI Units from e/s
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
Conversion to the Kg
Calculate the Mass in e/s:
joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Speed of light C= 299792458 m/s
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s * 299792458
= 1 e/s (Speed of light C)
E=Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J
This is the Energy of the Mass of the Electron and the equivalent Energy in terms of space-time (i.e. m/s).
Conversion to SI Units from e/s
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
Conversion to the Kg
Calculate the Mass in e/s:
joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Speed of light C= 299792458 m/s
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s * 299792458
= 1 e/s (Speed of light C)
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 28 2012, 12:30 PM)
DeepThought has amended the Mass-Current-SapceTime equivalence
For the most part I have no problems with you discussing these ideas on the forum, as you have been responsive in engaging other posters remarks in a responsible way.
A major problem I have is accepting your implications that "Deep Thought" is not you? It casts a cloud over everything you've written. So I am asking outright:
Are you Deep Thought?
If you claim you are not; why are you putting so much effort promoting his ideas, and what is your relationship to him and these ideas?
Maxila
For the most part I have no problems with you discussing these ideas on the forum, as you have been responsive in engaging other posters remarks in a responsible way.
A major problem I have is accepting your implications that "Deep Thought" is not you? It casts a cloud over everything you've written. So I am asking outright:
Are you Deep Thought?
If you claim you are not; why are you putting so much effort promoting his ideas, and what is your relationship to him and these ideas?
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+Jun 28 2012, 08:09 PM)
For the most part I have no problems with you discussing these ideas on the forum, as you have been responsive in engaging other posters remarks in a responsible way.
A major problem I have is accepting your implications that "Deep Thought" is not you? It casts a cloud over everything you've written. So I am asking outright:
Are you Deep Thought?
If you claim you are not; why are you putting so much effort promoting his ideas, and what is your relationship to him and these ideas?
Maxila
I'm not DeepThought, I have just been reading his work and exchanging emails. I also do not see why this would change mathematical formulas, nor the ability of anyone to use those formulas and confirm their validity.
That issue aside. I am not promoting the work, rather learning it as it seems to work. Its been a long time since anyone added new operators to mathematics and I've never seen formulas found in classical physics being resolved with quantum mechanics and then predicting quantum mechanical effects.
That is a leap in understanding.
Additionally, he's come up with a new equivalence and we have run the math in this forum. It works, which puts this guy on par with Einstein at least. It certainly puts him right up there with Hawking, Feynman, Dirac, etc.
Once you grasp the math, you will observe that there is no way of progressing in quantum mechanics without employing it. We have an awesome opportunity, we're at ground zero on this, I don't think any of the major players have even seen it yet and it is absolutely critical to their work.
Math, as we know it, just does not cut the mustard when it comes to quantum mechanics. I was blind to this before he started to show the issues. The first article was very unclear, but I could sense that he was on the verge of something, the numbers were working. In the second article this became more clear and the new math started to emerge explaining the sense of confusion in the first article.
DeepThought is re-writing the book on quantum mechanics, not only that, he is showing us all how he is doing it, as he is doing it. That's invaluable.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, read it, learn it, use it. It works...its weird, but that's exactly what the quantum world is.
A major problem I have is accepting your implications that "Deep Thought" is not you? It casts a cloud over everything you've written. So I am asking outright:
Are you Deep Thought?
If you claim you are not; why are you putting so much effort promoting his ideas, and what is your relationship to him and these ideas?
Maxila
I'm not DeepThought, I have just been reading his work and exchanging emails. I also do not see why this would change mathematical formulas, nor the ability of anyone to use those formulas and confirm their validity.
That issue aside. I am not promoting the work, rather learning it as it seems to work. Its been a long time since anyone added new operators to mathematics and I've never seen formulas found in classical physics being resolved with quantum mechanics and then predicting quantum mechanical effects.
That is a leap in understanding.
Additionally, he's come up with a new equivalence and we have run the math in this forum. It works, which puts this guy on par with Einstein at least. It certainly puts him right up there with Hawking, Feynman, Dirac, etc.
Once you grasp the math, you will observe that there is no way of progressing in quantum mechanics without employing it. We have an awesome opportunity, we're at ground zero on this, I don't think any of the major players have even seen it yet and it is absolutely critical to their work.
Math, as we know it, just does not cut the mustard when it comes to quantum mechanics. I was blind to this before he started to show the issues. The first article was very unclear, but I could sense that he was on the verge of something, the numbers were working. In the second article this became more clear and the new math started to emerge explaining the sense of confusion in the first article.
DeepThought is re-writing the book on quantum mechanics, not only that, he is showing us all how he is doing it, as he is doing it. That's invaluable.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, read it, learn it, use it. It works...its weird, but that's exactly what the quantum world is.
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 28 2012, 08:52 PM)
I'm not DeepThought, I have just been reading his work and exchanging emails. I also do not see why this would change mathematical formulas, nor the ability of anyone to use those formulas and confirm their validity.
That issue aside. I am not promoting the work, rather learning it as it seems to work. Its been a long time since anyone added new operators to mathematics and I've never seen formulas found in classical physics being resolved with quantum mechanics and then predicting quantum mechanical effects.
That is a leap in understanding.
Additionally, he's come up with a new equivalence and we have run the math in this forum. It works, which puts this guy on par with Einstein at least. It certainly puts him right up there with Hawking, Feynman, Dirac, etc.
Once you grasp the math, you will observe that there is no way of progressing in quantum mechanics without employing it. We have an awesome opportunity, we're at ground zero on this, I don't think any of the major players have even seen it yet and it is absolutely critical to their work.
Math, as we know it, just does not cut the mustard when it comes to quantum mechanics. I was blind to this before he started to show the issues. The first article was very unclear, but I could sense that he was on the verge of something, the numbers were working. In the second article this became more clear and the new math started to emerge explaining the sense of confusion in the first article.
DeepThought is re-writing the book on quantum mechanics, not only that, he is showing us all how he is doing it, as he is doing it. That's invaluable.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, read it, learn it, use it. It works...its weird, but that's exactly what the quantum world is.
I say you are Deepthought. You said the relativistic energy equation is wrong. Therefore anything else you have to say, about physics, is bullshit. If you're not Deepthroat but instead his scientific illiterate sidekick or that guy who thinks you can read minds from a satellite, then I apologize. Not really since I'm pretty sure you are Deepthought, his sidekick, and the guy who thinks you can read minds from a satellite. Saying the relativistic energy equation is wrong is seriously stupid if you actually wanted somebody to read your bullshit.
That issue aside. I am not promoting the work, rather learning it as it seems to work. Its been a long time since anyone added new operators to mathematics and I've never seen formulas found in classical physics being resolved with quantum mechanics and then predicting quantum mechanical effects.
That is a leap in understanding.
Additionally, he's come up with a new equivalence and we have run the math in this forum. It works, which puts this guy on par with Einstein at least. It certainly puts him right up there with Hawking, Feynman, Dirac, etc.
Once you grasp the math, you will observe that there is no way of progressing in quantum mechanics without employing it. We have an awesome opportunity, we're at ground zero on this, I don't think any of the major players have even seen it yet and it is absolutely critical to their work.
Math, as we know it, just does not cut the mustard when it comes to quantum mechanics. I was blind to this before he started to show the issues. The first article was very unclear, but I could sense that he was on the verge of something, the numbers were working. In the second article this became more clear and the new math started to emerge explaining the sense of confusion in the first article.
DeepThought is re-writing the book on quantum mechanics, not only that, he is showing us all how he is doing it, as he is doing it. That's invaluable.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, read it, learn it, use it. It works...its weird, but that's exactly what the quantum world is.
I say you are Deepthought. You said the relativistic energy equation is wrong. Therefore anything else you have to say, about physics, is bullshit. If you're not Deepthroat but instead his scientific illiterate sidekick or that guy who thinks you can read minds from a satellite, then I apologize. Not really since I'm pretty sure you are Deepthought, his sidekick, and the guy who thinks you can read minds from a satellite. Saying the relativistic energy equation is wrong is seriously stupid if you actually wanted somebody to read your bullshit.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 28 2012, 09:36 PM)
I say you are Deepthought. You said the relativistic energy equation is wrong. Therefore anything else you have to say, about physics, is bullshit. If you're not Deepthroat but instead his scientific illiterate sidekick or that guy who thinks you can read minds from a satellite, then I apologize. Not really since I'm pretty sure you are Deepthought, his sidekick, and the guy who thinks you can read minds from a satellite. Saying the relativistic energy equation is wrong is seriously stupid if you actually wanted somebody to read your bullshit.
I see you still have not done the math, or read the material.
No one cares what you think, you have no knowledge of the work to criticize from an informed position.
You really sound like a mad man.
I see you still have not done the math, or read the material.
No one cares what you think, you have no knowledge of the work to criticize from an informed position.
You really sound like a mad man.
ok, two more updates have been posted by DeepThought that answer some of the questions I sent to him by email.
This seems to clarify the terms he used such as mechanisms and transforms.
I still don't fully understand how he creates new operators...but we have got another one.
Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J
This is the Energy of the Mass of the Electron and the equivalent Energy in terms of space-time (i.e. m/s).
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Conversion to the Kilogram (Contemporary Math)
Method 1:
calculate the Mass in e/s:
joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Method 2 (Using Tao Math)
Calculate Ratios
Kilograms to Joules
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
= 1.112650056053618432174089964848e-17
Joules to kilogram
3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37
= 89,875,517,873,681,764
Multiply distance by Joules to kilogram ratio
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 * 89,875,517,873,681,764
= 7,358.203076443854225649764839864
Setup function f(x)
Input: 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14
Conversion values
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
Target
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Derive Formula
?(A * ((B / C) + X)) = Target
Note: This ? and () defines that the formula, at some point, requires Tao math.
Solve for X
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ((3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37) + X) = Target
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 (89,875,517,873,681,764 + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 / 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ?=( 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
This new operator =( is Tao-Inverse-Equality. It means to invert the values to the right. (A type of "Not gate" - I'll explain later in another post.)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 - 89,875,517,873,681,764 = X
X = 3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37
Test
3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822436
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822436 + Multiply distance by Joules to kilogram ratio = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
(3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 * distance (e/s)) * 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 = Energy (e/s)
Derive Final Formula
((Energy (e/s) / distance (e/s)) * distance (e/s)) * ((kilogram (e/s) / Joule (e/s)) * distance(e/s)) = Energy (e/s)
Although I have not done it, this should reduce to E = MC^2. We can also have a variant with E^2 on one side, which should provide a deeper insight into Einstein's formula.
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
If you examine the Tao math version, which is far more accurate than Einstein's version, we can see an apparent jump in Energy due to the inversion. Whether we are looking at multiple views (transforms) of the same thing, or there is a sudden Energy spike when space-time is converted to Mass (oh, that's what it says happens) needs to be proven by experimental study.
I make this note due to Gamma-ray bursts and calculations that showed under certain interpretations the events would violate the conservation of Energy.
Now, the interesting thing to arise from this part of the analysis is that even though the following are in the same units, the relationship is non-linear:
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
That is 1e/s of the Joule is not 1 e/s of the kilogram. The above post shows a "conversion mechanism" and demonstrates where we got our SI units from.
Are they different things?
Well, from a mathematical point of view we can see the difference between units as a transform and that they exist in both transforms simultaneously. Thus, they are not different things but the same thing viewed from a different perspective. This different perspective changes their apparent properties.
This is similar to this notion:
The above transformation rules show that the electric field in one frame contributes to the magnetic field in another frame, and vice versa.[14] This is often described by saying that the electric field and magnetic field are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic field. Indeed, the entire electromagnetic field can be encoded in a single rank-2 tensor called the electromagnetic tensor; see below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_ele...ifferent_frames
In the end, it is telling us that the Energy distribution between particle types is different, not that they are different things. Not only that, but in different transforms the same Energy can manifest as different numbers of quantum packets.
If we now look at the aspect of the above formula that appears to violate the conservation of Energy, we can see it is a variation of E=MC^2. It would be expressed as this in Tao math:
EC^2 =( M
It certainly is an inversion of Energy, resulting in a creation of matter that is inconsistent with the input Energy. To restore the conservation of Energy, a suggestion is that we are seeking another source of Energy implying this operator states that the formula is incomplete.
Crank bullshit.
It would be helpful if he would denote by each value of (e/s) what the hell it is. I don't like when people write in a bunch of undefined variables it is annoying ( i can get the general gist) I like it even less when people write in a bunch of undefined values especially long numbers. It makes it hard to follow.
That's the entire point of Tao, it is uncertain. He has an article in the works that will explain at a mathematical level what he is actually doing, I think the target for release is sometime within the next 24 hours.
That's the entire point of Tao, it is uncertain. He has an article in the works that will explain at a mathematical level what he is actually doing, I think the target for release is sometime within the next 24 hours.
joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s<(energy of 1 joule in e/s) * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 <(energy of electron @ rest in joules not distance)
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s (is this Mass of the electron in e/s?)
Where is the distance?
This formula is denoted in what DeepThought has referred to as Tao version 1, which is like a liquid form of Euclidean-based geometry. In this version of Tao, the transforms are dynamic and not shown in the equations. When we look at this:
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 <(energy of electron @ rest in joules not distance)
...technically we are looking at distance, but from a different point of view. Conventionally, we think of this as a unit change, in Tao we would state that the transform changes the number of particles and energy distribution.
Anyway, I think you are right :
joule (e/s) * energy of electron (e/s) = distance (e/s)
It must be a typo, because the math itself is correct. I got it from DeepThought, so I think we are seeing rough notes that have not been proof read. Rather than hiding the errors in development, he's actually revealing them, just in case other people spot different relationships.
That is not quite true. Our measurement system is based upon ranges between values this leads to inherent inaccuracies, or the observer effect. Mass occurs within space-time and must exchange particles which are constantly in motion, there is thus a delay and a relativistic behavior, this all leads to values in flux. Further, the matter wave nature leads to a probabilistic exchange of this particles, which further increases the flux.
The effect is tiny, but present.
That is not quite true. Our measurement system is based upon ranges between values this leads to inherent inaccuracies, or the observer effect. Mass occurs within space-time and must exchange particles which are constantly in motion, there is thus a delay and a relativistic behavior, this all leads to values in flux. Further, the matter wave nature leads to a probabilistic exchange of this particles, which further increases the flux.
The effect is tiny, but present.
When @ rest Matter travels through Time @ C therefore the distance an electron travels through time is the e/s.
When @ rest Light travels through space @ C
This does not make sense, matter cannot travel at C and light cannot be considered at rest. The latter is a classical notion, there is no such thing as "at rest".
IMO Tao (?) is mumbo jumbo to designed give the author creative licence to describe something he does not yet understand.
Have you read the last article?
Far from being mumbo jumbo, it is the basis upon which all mathematical systems have their foundation. Can you describe what Tao is and show an example? I want to see if you have misunderstood the mathematical theory behind it. Its easy done given the way this has developed.
Keep in mind that Tao and the version of Tao he was using are related but different concepts. For example, contemporary math is also a form of Tao.
Let's check this first.
Have you read the last article?
Far from being mumbo jumbo, it is the basis upon which all mathematical systems have their foundation. Can you describe what Tao is and show an example? I want to see if you have misunderstood the mathematical theory behind it. Its easy done given the way this has developed.
Keep in mind that Tao and the version of Tao he was using are related but different concepts. For example, contemporary math is also a form of Tao.
Let's check this first.
The only thing uncertain is the relative energies two particles will have when they meet and Einstein solved that problem with General Relativity (gravity) and Special Relativity (relative speed).
That is a very old interpretation based upon classical physics. The modern interpretation is that of the wave-function, which is defined as a probability. This leads to these statements:
"At a fundamental level, everything in the universe behaves like a little probability wave."
"The entire universe should actually have one giant, ridiculously complex wave function..."
http://io9.com/5528321/how-smart-do-you-ne...a-wave-function
Since a wave-function is a probability, then a universe is one giant probability and every particle has a certain probability of being that particle. Until measured, it is everything at once and every aspect of reality from Mass to Time is always uncertain.
This is the concept behind Tao.
If the author can do that with e/s then it may hold some merit otherwise it is useless.
It can be done, contemporary math is a form of Tao and it works there. With these other version of Tao, the author is demonstrating that we can shatter the rules of math and still have a functioning descriptive system. Not only that, but this new approach is more suitable to describing a system whose relationships are constantly in flux.
It can be done, contemporary math is a form of Tao and it works there. With these other version of Tao, the author is demonstrating that we can shatter the rules of math and still have a functioning descriptive system. Not only that, but this new approach is more suitable to describing a system whose relationships are constantly in flux.
I am not opposed to the exploration of e/s charge per second there could be something there and how will we know unless we look. I think it is a novel form of examination. but like I said before if the results do not match or best time tested and proven physics then it is a dead end.
ok, I think you have missed the point of the latest article. He is not exploring "charge per second", he was using that as the basis of a coordinate system (a type of space like Hilbert, Minkowski, etc) then basically melting or liquefying mathematical relationships (which he demonstrates are transforms) to represent the fact that real relationships are in flux.
Its a more dynamic version of math.
Tao math is cranky nonsense. ? is not a valid math operator, neither is =( it is just a funny sad face emoticon.
They are valid operators when transforms (or equations) are not based upon equality. The ? defines that you are using Tao and ?=( is from EC-Particle-Space.
If it was nonsense, you simply could not work with it, nor demonstrate equations (or transforms) which lead to accurate values in contemporary math.
They are valid operators when transforms (or equations) are not based upon equality. The ? defines that you are using Tao and ?=( is from EC-Particle-Space.
If it was nonsense, you simply could not work with it, nor demonstrate equations (or transforms) which lead to accurate values in contemporary math.
AlexG probably thinks e/s is cranky too. I would disagree with him on that point.
He would really need to explain this. I feel it is more a failure to read the work in any great depth and, as a result, he's developed odd views of what e/s really means, how the math works or why it makes sense.
To be honest it may turn out to be total crankery. However, after a cursory look I believe it deserves a closer look. The e/s units make sense with the conversion definitions. Quantized time seems to be valid all the units seem to be convertible between mass and energy.
The e/s unit is just an arbitrary reference point. To get a full picture of the quantum world, you would need to create Tao spaces for every unit, derive the mathematical rules and then integrate the various spaces into one unified model.
The e/s unit is just an arbitrary reference point. To get a full picture of the quantum world, you would need to create Tao spaces for every unit, derive the mathematical rules and then integrate the various spaces into one unified model.
I will put some more work into trying to make it make useful beyond supposition. I may be able to use it for gravity as I have been looking for a way to truly quantize energy, mass, and time in 1 2D unit for some time now. this e/s charge or length in time may be the unit I have been looking for.
It is already well beyond supposition, it has functional and defined relationships. Gravity will only emerge from an integration of General Relativity with Quantum mechanics. That's what DeepThought is doing.
I may have to eat some crow.
I have previously stated flatly that the Higgs Boson does not exist.
Most of my opposition to the Higgs Boson was due to my believing it was not necessary or that if there was a Higgs Boson there was only 1 that encompasses
the whole universe and as such would never be found.
It may still not exist, however given this e/s hypothesis I now see the need for a Higgs Boson. IMO for particles (having mass) to be discreet and have mass
there needs to be a Higgs Boson if not Light would not be mass-less.
See the thing is with light when you say E=MC^2 M=0
so you say where E=Energy and v=frequency and λ=wavelength h=Planck's constant = 6.626068E-34 m2 kg / s
E=h*c/λ or E=h*v
h*C=Planck's constant * the speed of light = 1.98644521E-25 m3 kg / s2
so a photon with an energy of 8.187 104 38(41)×10−14 Joules
is not an electron.
Its' rest (e/s) energy in joules is the same but it's (e/s) Mass is 0 which would only make sense if there were a container in which the energy were trapped inducing a mass.
That probably sounds convoluted.
I am not married to it. I need to think on it some more. It seemed clear when I woke up this morning.
Maybe you should call it Higgs space.
I may have to eat some crow. I have previously stated flatly that the Higgs Boson does not exist. Most of my opposition to the Higgs Boson was due to my believing it was not necessary or that if there was a Higgs Boson there was only 1 that encompasses the whole universe and as such would never be found. It may still not exist, however given this e/s hypothesis I now see the need for a Higgs Boson. IMO for particles (having mass) to be discreet and have mass there needs to be a Higgs Boson if not Light would not be mass-less.
You are beginning to see that in quantized space particles obtain characteristics due to interactions with other particles. Further, that the lack of a characterisitic (such as a photon without Mass) is due to a lack of interaction.
This is what DeepThought defines as "mechanisms".
You are beginning to see that in quantized space particles obtain characteristics due to interactions with other particles. Further, that the lack of a characterisitic (such as a photon without Mass) is due to a lack of interaction.
This is what DeepThought defines as "mechanisms".
so you say where E=Energy and v=frequency and λ=wavelength h=Planck's constant = 6.626068E-34 m2 kg / s
E=h*c/λ or E=h*v
h*C=Planck's constant * the speed of light = 1.98644521E-25 m3 kg / s2
so a photon with an energy of 8.187 104 38(41)×10−14 Joules is not an electron. Its' rest (e/s) energy in joules is the same but it's (e/s) Mass is 0 which would only make sense if there were a container in which the energy were trapped inducing a mass.
I think you are getting it. Now, if we wanted to integrate these two equations:
E = MC^2
E=hv
...we need to eliminate zero from mathematics. This would allows us to deal with situations where either no Mass or no photons exist.
Maybe you should call it Higgs space.
It does help with understanding the Higg's mechanism, which it then applies to everything. But since it is not restricted to the Higgs and currently defined in terms of e/s, its probably best left defined as EC-Particle-Space.
This seems to clarify the terms he used such as mechanisms and transforms.
I still don't fully understand how he creates new operators...but we have got another one.
QUOTE
Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J
This is the Energy of the Mass of the Electron and the equivalent Energy in terms of space-time (i.e. m/s).
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Conversion to the Kilogram (Contemporary Math)
Method 1:
calculate the Mass in e/s:
joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Method 2 (Using Tao Math)
Calculate Ratios
Kilograms to Joules
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
= 1.112650056053618432174089964848e-17
Joules to kilogram
3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37
= 89,875,517,873,681,764
Multiply distance by Joules to kilogram ratio
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 * 89,875,517,873,681,764
= 7,358.203076443854225649764839864
Setup function f(x)
Input: 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14
Conversion values
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
Target
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Derive Formula
?(A * ((B / C) + X)) = Target
Note: This ? and () defines that the formula, at some point, requires Tao math.
Solve for X
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ((3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37) + X) = Target
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 (89,875,517,873,681,764 + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 / 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ?=( 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
This new operator =( is Tao-Inverse-Equality. It means to invert the values to the right. (A type of "Not gate" - I'll explain later in another post.)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 - 89,875,517,873,681,764 = X
X = 3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37
Test
3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822436
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822436 + Multiply distance by Joules to kilogram ratio = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
(3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 * distance (e/s)) * 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 = Energy (e/s)
Derive Final Formula
((Energy (e/s) / distance (e/s)) * distance (e/s)) * ((kilogram (e/s) / Joule (e/s)) * distance(e/s)) = Energy (e/s)
Although I have not done it, this should reduce to E = MC^2. We can also have a variant with E^2 on one side, which should provide a deeper insight into Einstein's formula.
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
If you examine the Tao math version, which is far more accurate than Einstein's version, we can see an apparent jump in Energy due to the inversion. Whether we are looking at multiple views (transforms) of the same thing, or there is a sudden Energy spike when space-time is converted to Mass (oh, that's what it says happens) needs to be proven by experimental study.
I make this note due to Gamma-ray bursts and calculations that showed under certain interpretations the events would violate the conservation of Energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J This is the Energy of the Mass of the Electron and the equivalent Energy in terms of space-time (i.e. m/s). Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s Conversion to the Kilogram (Contemporary Math) Method 1: calculate the Mass in e/s: joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2) 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg: Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s) 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s = 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg Method 2 (Using Tao Math) Calculate Ratios Kilograms to Joules 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s = 1.112650056053618432174089964848e-17 Joules to kilogram 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 Multiply distance by Joules to kilogram ratio 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 * 89,875,517,873,681,764 = 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 Setup function f(x) Input: 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 Conversion values Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s Target = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s Derive Formula ?(A * ((B / C) + X)) = Target Note: This ? and () defines that the formula, at some point, requires Tao math. Solve for X 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ((3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37) + X) = Target 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 (89,875,517,873,681,764 + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 / 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ?=( 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X This new operator =( is Tao-Inverse-Equality. It means to invert the values to the right. (A type of "Not gate" - I'll explain later in another post.) 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 - 89,875,517,873,681,764 = X X = 3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 Test 3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822436 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822436 + Multiply distance by Joules to kilogram ratio = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 (3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 * distance (e/s)) * 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 = Energy (e/s) Derive Final Formula ((Energy (e/s) / distance (e/s)) * distance (e/s)) * ((kilogram (e/s) / Joule (e/s)) * distance(e/s)) = Energy (e/s) Although I have not done it, this should reduce to E = MC^2. We can also have a variant with E^2 on one side, which should provide a deeper insight into Einstein's formula. To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg: Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s) 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s = 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg If you examine the Tao math version, which is far more accurate than Einstein's version, we can see an apparent jump in Energy due to the inversion. Whether we are looking at multiple views (transforms) of the same thing, or there is a sudden Energy spike when space-time is converted to Mass (oh, that's what it says happens) needs to be proven by experimental study. I make this note due to Gamma-ray bursts and calculations that showed under certain interpretations the events would violate the conservation of Energy. |
Now, the interesting thing to arise from this part of the analysis is that even though the following are in the same units, the relationship is non-linear:
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
That is 1e/s of the Joule is not 1 e/s of the kilogram. The above post shows a "conversion mechanism" and demonstrates where we got our SI units from.
Are they different things?
Well, from a mathematical point of view we can see the difference between units as a transform and that they exist in both transforms simultaneously. Thus, they are not different things but the same thing viewed from a different perspective. This different perspective changes their apparent properties.
This is similar to this notion:
The above transformation rules show that the electric field in one frame contributes to the magnetic field in another frame, and vice versa.[14] This is often described by saying that the electric field and magnetic field are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic field. Indeed, the entire electromagnetic field can be encoded in a single rank-2 tensor called the electromagnetic tensor; see below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_ele...ifferent_frames
In the end, it is telling us that the Energy distribution between particle types is different, not that they are different things. Not only that, but in different transforms the same Energy can manifest as different numbers of quantum packets.
If we now look at the aspect of the above formula that appears to violate the conservation of Energy, we can see it is a variation of E=MC^2. It would be expressed as this in Tao math:
EC^2 =( M
It certainly is an inversion of Energy, resulting in a creation of matter that is inconsistent with the input Energy. To restore the conservation of Energy, a suggestion is that we are seeking another source of Energy implying this operator states that the formula is incomplete.
A correction to the above formula in Tao math:
Derive Final Formula
((Energy (e/s) / distance (e/s)) * distance (e/s)) * ((kilogram (e/s) / Joule (e/s)) + distance(e/s)) = Energy (e/s)
Derive Final Formula
((Energy (e/s) / distance (e/s)) * distance (e/s)) * ((kilogram (e/s) / Joule (e/s)) + distance(e/s)) = Energy (e/s)
Another correction:
Its not:
EC^2 =( M
It is:
E/C^2 =( M
Its not:
EC^2 =( M
It is:
E/C^2 =( M
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 28 2012, 09:56 PM)
A correction to the above formula in Tao math:
Derive Final Formula
((Energy (e/s) / distance (e/s)) * distance (e/s)) * ((kilogram (e/s) / Joule (e/s)) + distance(e/s)) = Energy (e/s)
What a convoluted load of bullshit. So you think this is energy?
kg s^-4 + m^-1 = kg m^2 s^-2
Why are you worrying about this stuff if you don't understand dimensional analysis or anything else to do with physics or math.
Derive Final Formula
((Energy (e/s) / distance (e/s)) * distance (e/s)) * ((kilogram (e/s) / Joule (e/s)) + distance(e/s)) = Energy (e/s)
What a convoluted load of bullshit. So you think this is energy?
kg s^-4 + m^-1 = kg m^2 s^-2
Why are you worrying about this stuff if you don't understand dimensional analysis or anything else to do with physics or math.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 29 2012, 12:35 AM)
What a convoluted load of bullshit. So you think this is energy?
kg s^-4 + m^-1 = kg m^2 s^-2
Why are you worrying about this stuff if you don't understand dimensional analysis or anything else to do with physics or math.
Your "interpretation" of the formula is wrong.
This is Tao math, not contemporary math. You can't treat it that way, but at least now I can see where you are going wrong.
I suppose certain things were explained to me via email, that may not be readily apparent in the published material. Basically, you have summed space-times and separated them from their type of matter, you can't do that.
That type of thinking is based on "imaginary" constructs from contemporary math. Tao math deals with reality as it is, not as some abstract description.
Anyway, DeepThought posted this on his site:
Something has just clicked, I need to combine uncertainty with certainty. I'm sure this will not make much sense, but it will become clear in the next article.
I need to perform a complete re-write. At a functional level, most of this material is correct, it just needs a better structure and I think I have solved that.
Hopefully, this will make everything easier to grasp.
So, I think some major structural changes are coming to the developing Tao math to account for new information.
kg s^-4 + m^-1 = kg m^2 s^-2
Why are you worrying about this stuff if you don't understand dimensional analysis or anything else to do with physics or math.
Your "interpretation" of the formula is wrong.
This is Tao math, not contemporary math. You can't treat it that way, but at least now I can see where you are going wrong.
I suppose certain things were explained to me via email, that may not be readily apparent in the published material. Basically, you have summed space-times and separated them from their type of matter, you can't do that.
That type of thinking is based on "imaginary" constructs from contemporary math. Tao math deals with reality as it is, not as some abstract description.
Anyway, DeepThought posted this on his site:
QUOTE
Something has just clicked, I need to combine uncertainty with certainty. I'm sure this will not make much sense, but it will become clear in the next article.
I need to perform a complete re-write. At a functional level, most of this material is correct, it just needs a better structure and I think I have solved that.
Hopefully, this will make everything easier to grasp.
So, I think some major structural changes are coming to the developing Tao math to account for new information.
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 28 2012, 03:52 PM)
I also do not see why this would change mathematical formulas, nor the ability of anyone to use those formulas and confirm their validity.
The true significance of the mathematical formulas is not going to be determined on a public forum, even though it can be discussed and debated here. Its real worth requires a rigorous peer review, empirical validations, and time.
On the other hand if you are being dishonest in representing who you are, and your involvement, well... That calls in to question what else you might be dishonest about in these discussions?
Maxila
The true significance of the mathematical formulas is not going to be determined on a public forum, even though it can be discussed and debated here. Its real worth requires a rigorous peer review, empirical validations, and time.
On the other hand if you are being dishonest in representing who you are, and your involvement, well... That calls in to question what else you might be dishonest about in these discussions?
Maxila
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 28 2012, 03:13 AM)
So, you didn't bother reading the material?
Why even comment? How dumb can you get?
If you had read the material you would know that the equation needs to be amended. If you really understood anything about science and a unified perspective, you would know this to be true.
The answer is in simple math. If we define everything in the Universe as E, then everything in it needs to be factors of E. This would lead to one giant equation that equal E.
If any of those values were zero, at any point, the sum total of Energy would be zero and that's just nonsense.
Thus, we need to dump the mathematical notion of zero and replace it with something else.
By the way, did you even do the math in the first part?
I did and guess what, I found an answer to V=IR that shows electrons traveling in pairs, not a zero voltage and no change in amps.
This guys formulas work and match experimental science. That is the acid test.
Did I miss something ? Defining every thing as energy ? I never heard that before ?
I thought energy was the equivalence of mcsq. not that it = but the equivalence .
That is not the same you know . Yeah you can release the energy in mass but can you make matter out of energy ? Can people do that ?
I saw someone say energy condenses into matter . I got My doubts about that one also . Maybe I just don't know ? I think it is equivalent
I have not read the work . Can someone post a link we can click on ?
Got to go . Got more to do than chat .
Why even comment? How dumb can you get?
If you had read the material you would know that the equation needs to be amended. If you really understood anything about science and a unified perspective, you would know this to be true.
The answer is in simple math. If we define everything in the Universe as E, then everything in it needs to be factors of E. This would lead to one giant equation that equal E.
If any of those values were zero, at any point, the sum total of Energy would be zero and that's just nonsense.
Thus, we need to dump the mathematical notion of zero and replace it with something else.
By the way, did you even do the math in the first part?
I did and guess what, I found an answer to V=IR that shows electrons traveling in pairs, not a zero voltage and no change in amps.
This guys formulas work and match experimental science. That is the acid test.
Did I miss something ? Defining every thing as energy ? I never heard that before ?
I thought energy was the equivalence of mcsq. not that it = but the equivalence .
That is not the same you know . Yeah you can release the energy in mass but can you make matter out of energy ? Can people do that ?
I saw someone say energy condenses into matter . I got My doubts about that one also . Maybe I just don't know ? I think it is equivalent
I have not read the work . Can someone post a link we can click on ?
Got to go . Got more to do than chat .
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 29 2012, 01:00 AM)
Your "interpretation" of the formula is wrong.
This is Tao math, not contemporary math. You can't treat it that way, but at least now I can see where you are going wrong.
I suppose certain things were explained to me via email, that may not be readily apparent in the published material. Basically, you have summed space-times and separated them from their type of matter, you can't do that.
That type of thinking is based on "imaginary" constructs from contemporary math. Tao math deals with reality as it is, not as some abstract description.
Anyway, DeepThought posted this on his site:
So, I think some major structural changes are coming to the developing Tao math to account for new information.
I'm not going wrong you are. If that's what it's supposed to be then Tao math is total bullshit. Which was clearly the case after you said the relativistic energy equation is wrong. Go try and publish that kind of bullshit in a journal. I'll give you several crackpot journals who are always interested in different flavors of bullshit physics.
This is Tao math, not contemporary math. You can't treat it that way, but at least now I can see where you are going wrong.
I suppose certain things were explained to me via email, that may not be readily apparent in the published material. Basically, you have summed space-times and separated them from their type of matter, you can't do that.
That type of thinking is based on "imaginary" constructs from contemporary math. Tao math deals with reality as it is, not as some abstract description.
Anyway, DeepThought posted this on his site:
So, I think some major structural changes are coming to the developing Tao math to account for new information.
I'm not going wrong you are. If that's what it's supposed to be then Tao math is total bullshit. Which was clearly the case after you said the relativistic energy equation is wrong. Go try and publish that kind of bullshit in a journal. I'll give you several crackpot journals who are always interested in different flavors of bullshit physics.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 29 2012, 01:21 AM)
I'm not going wrong you are. If that's what it's supposed to be then Tao math is total bullshit. Which was clearly the case after you said the relativistic energy equation is wrong. Go try and publish that kind of bullshit in a journal. I'll give you several crackpot journals who are always interested in different flavors of bullshit physics.
I emailed DeepThought and got him to explain what Tao math is. I'm sure he can put it better than I can, so here is his response:
Tao math is, in short, a mathematical framework based upon the principles of uncertainty. It has been designed primarily as a decompilation tool for reality. Similar in principle to tools such as Boomerang or Hex-Rays, Tao math is what I use to extract relationships, variables, structure, etc.
The math is not designed to provide accurate answers, in fact, given its basis in uncertainty we can be 100% guaranteed it will not. What it does provide is a formless environment based up quantization which allows the freeform analysis free from the constraints imposed of math, physics, etc. If you would like a comparison try IBM Cognos Express Advisor.
Tao math allows analysis of sections of reality without worrying about defined relationships to other aspects through formulas and constraints. This allows free exploration that progressively reveals the relationships in small confined sections. It would be similar to throwing a white sheet across a room and attempting to identify objects by defining the edges in small sections. This should go some way to explaining why I keep noting relationships, adding new operators, have some relationships that appear broken and some that work well.
The overall aim is to define a range of probable answers to various aspects of reality, once this is achieved the focus shifts to resolving those various probable answers into a coherent functional mathematical framework.
This last portion involves bridging the uncertainty of Tao, with the certainty of conventional mathematics in a way that makes consistent sense. Based upon what I have learned from the Tao analysis, I feel I may have hit upon a potential bridge and that's what the re-write is about. If this proves fruitless, then I will continue the analysis with Tao until another potential bridge becomes apparent and we will begin the process again.
So, I apologize if Tao is somewhat confusing to those from a rigid physics and maths background, but it is a very flexible and powerful analysis tool. It just takes some getting used too. If you read the articles, you will see that it was developed quite rapidly and even I am still getting to grips with it. So much so, that it wasn't fully apparent what Tao was whilst writing the articles, it just seem to work so I ran with it.
Well, now that you understand this, let's explain why I have noted that some major elements of physics are wrong/incomplete. The way Tao works is based on a completely dynamic system, think of it like a fluid. In this way, nothing can be considered static and the unified viewpoint of the universe makes it difficult to discern one thing from another. I started to notice that physics was full of descriptions of defined static properties, such as Charge, Mass, etc., and made distinctions when these objects are in motion. The truth is, in a relativistic universe nothing can be considered static nor outside of Time. This made certain notions such as a defined Mass, Length, Energy, Charge, etc., seem a little naive. These aspects must be constantly in flux to some degree and for accuracy must be presented as such. In practice, this makes equations more complex and a lot less beautiful, as a wide range of considerations need to be integrated into them that are currently not present. In doing so, I feel that the equations could change so much as to be barely recognizable.
I think someone mentioned my comment on E=MC^2 if M=0. I understand that in conventional physics this formula is treated in isolation and experimentally well tested. The problem really arises when you try to expand upon that definition of E and include massless particles also. In theory, it should be possible to define the entire universe as E and then a single massive formula to define how everything in the universe combines to equal E. It is not plausible that such a formula at a given point in time will not contain a multiplication or division by zero of some major term. This would cause the equation to fail. Thus, I am arguing that zero is an imaginary term of mathematics and a replacement is required for work in physics. I am not alone in this opinion, but I am the first to propose a solution and it was derived from work on Tao.
So, I feel that as Tao expands as a framework, we will begin to get a clearer picture if this is a functional solution.
If anyone has questions, post them here and st2012 will forward them.
I emailed DeepThought and got him to explain what Tao math is. I'm sure he can put it better than I can, so here is his response:
QUOTE
Tao math is, in short, a mathematical framework based upon the principles of uncertainty. It has been designed primarily as a decompilation tool for reality. Similar in principle to tools such as Boomerang or Hex-Rays, Tao math is what I use to extract relationships, variables, structure, etc.
The math is not designed to provide accurate answers, in fact, given its basis in uncertainty we can be 100% guaranteed it will not. What it does provide is a formless environment based up quantization which allows the freeform analysis free from the constraints imposed of math, physics, etc. If you would like a comparison try IBM Cognos Express Advisor.
Tao math allows analysis of sections of reality without worrying about defined relationships to other aspects through formulas and constraints. This allows free exploration that progressively reveals the relationships in small confined sections. It would be similar to throwing a white sheet across a room and attempting to identify objects by defining the edges in small sections. This should go some way to explaining why I keep noting relationships, adding new operators, have some relationships that appear broken and some that work well.
The overall aim is to define a range of probable answers to various aspects of reality, once this is achieved the focus shifts to resolving those various probable answers into a coherent functional mathematical framework.
This last portion involves bridging the uncertainty of Tao, with the certainty of conventional mathematics in a way that makes consistent sense. Based upon what I have learned from the Tao analysis, I feel I may have hit upon a potential bridge and that's what the re-write is about. If this proves fruitless, then I will continue the analysis with Tao until another potential bridge becomes apparent and we will begin the process again.
So, I apologize if Tao is somewhat confusing to those from a rigid physics and maths background, but it is a very flexible and powerful analysis tool. It just takes some getting used too. If you read the articles, you will see that it was developed quite rapidly and even I am still getting to grips with it. So much so, that it wasn't fully apparent what Tao was whilst writing the articles, it just seem to work so I ran with it.
Well, now that you understand this, let's explain why I have noted that some major elements of physics are wrong/incomplete. The way Tao works is based on a completely dynamic system, think of it like a fluid. In this way, nothing can be considered static and the unified viewpoint of the universe makes it difficult to discern one thing from another. I started to notice that physics was full of descriptions of defined static properties, such as Charge, Mass, etc., and made distinctions when these objects are in motion. The truth is, in a relativistic universe nothing can be considered static nor outside of Time. This made certain notions such as a defined Mass, Length, Energy, Charge, etc., seem a little naive. These aspects must be constantly in flux to some degree and for accuracy must be presented as such. In practice, this makes equations more complex and a lot less beautiful, as a wide range of considerations need to be integrated into them that are currently not present. In doing so, I feel that the equations could change so much as to be barely recognizable.
I think someone mentioned my comment on E=MC^2 if M=0. I understand that in conventional physics this formula is treated in isolation and experimentally well tested. The problem really arises when you try to expand upon that definition of E and include massless particles also. In theory, it should be possible to define the entire universe as E and then a single massive formula to define how everything in the universe combines to equal E. It is not plausible that such a formula at a given point in time will not contain a multiplication or division by zero of some major term. This would cause the equation to fail. Thus, I am arguing that zero is an imaginary term of mathematics and a replacement is required for work in physics. I am not alone in this opinion, but I am the first to propose a solution and it was derived from work on Tao.
So, I feel that as Tao expands as a framework, we will begin to get a clearer picture if this is a functional solution.
If anyone has questions, post them here and st2012 will forward them.
QUOTE (st2012+Jun 29 2012, 02:26 AM)
I emailed DeepThought and got him to explain what Tao math is. I'm sure he can put it better than I can, so here is his response:
What a load of bullshit especially where I quit reading when you said "The math is not designed to provide accurate answers, ...." Then it's not really math is it? It's bullshit irrelevant nonsense. How can you be this clueless and expect to be taken serious?
What a load of bullshit especially where I quit reading when you said "The math is not designed to provide accurate answers, ...." Then it's not really math is it? It's bullshit irrelevant nonsense. How can you be this clueless and expect to be taken serious?
QUOTE
This is Tao math, not contemporary math.
Crank bullshit.
I don't think you understand Math very well. Sure, you can use it but do you really understand what you are doing?
Once again, I got DeepThought to explain it.
I'm not surprised they think its nuts, but there is an explanation. Let's go back to the foundation of mathematics.
An equation is just a transform of transforms. Conventional math is where all transforms are based upon equivalence.
Believe it or not, there is still major debate if this foundation is correct and especially if it is correct for physics.
So, this is not the only valid way to structure mathematics, we can have a form of math where the transforms are based upon a continuously sliding transform. That is, where not all the transforms are equivalent, or equivalence is maintained in areas of interest.
Tao math is one such system and it more closely represents the true nature of quantum mechanics.
This notion leads us to the concept that in different transforms, the same Energy can appear as a different number of particles, or apparent violations of conservation of Energy can validly occur under specific transforms. In fact, the formula E=MC^2 practically screams this to be true.
You may be wondering how do we extract useful information from this. How do we know what is real and what is a phantom? Well, we need to cross-reference it with conventional math and experimental evidence. This will reveal which transforms are accurate and their relationship to other transforms.
So, far from being completely wacko, it has solid grounding in the theoretical nature of mathematics and some support from relationships in physics.
Its just different and under development.
Once again, I got DeepThought to explain it.
QUOTE
I'm not surprised they think its nuts, but there is an explanation. Let's go back to the foundation of mathematics.
An equation is just a transform of transforms. Conventional math is where all transforms are based upon equivalence.
Believe it or not, there is still major debate if this foundation is correct and especially if it is correct for physics.
So, this is not the only valid way to structure mathematics, we can have a form of math where the transforms are based upon a continuously sliding transform. That is, where not all the transforms are equivalent, or equivalence is maintained in areas of interest.
Tao math is one such system and it more closely represents the true nature of quantum mechanics.
This notion leads us to the concept that in different transforms, the same Energy can appear as a different number of particles, or apparent violations of conservation of Energy can validly occur under specific transforms. In fact, the formula E=MC^2 practically screams this to be true.
You may be wondering how do we extract useful information from this. How do we know what is real and what is a phantom? Well, we need to cross-reference it with conventional math and experimental evidence. This will reveal which transforms are accurate and their relationship to other transforms.
So, far from being completely wacko, it has solid grounding in the theoretical nature of mathematics and some support from relationships in physics.
Its just different and under development.
E=MC^2
NOTE: in this post Mass IS to rest mass.
8.1871050654591619976025324000001E-14 J =9.10938291E-31 Kg * 89875517873681764.000000000000001
If I read the paper e/s charge per second for the electron is
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
okay I think i get this please correct any misunderstandings you find.
joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s<(energy of 1 joule in e/s) * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 <(energy of electron @ rest in joules not distance)
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s (is this Mass of the electron in e/s?)
Where is the distance?
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s (Mass of electron in e/s?)/ 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s (e/s of 1 kilogram?)
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg (Mass of electron)
It would be helpful if he would denote by each value of (e/s) what the hell it is. I don't like when people write in a bunch of undefined variables it is annoying ( i can get the general gist) I like it even less when people write in a bunch of undefined values especially long numbers. It makes it hard to follow.
As far as Tao summation is concerned I do not see the benefit yet. Ambiguous is Ambiguous and Ambiguous is not useful. It's like numerology fine for non physical fortune telling where ambiguity is the point but not useful for programming a computer where ambiguity leads to errors and mistakes. It could be that I am missing the point.
NOTE: in this post Mass IS to rest mass.
8.1871050654591619976025324000001E-14 J =9.10938291E-31 Kg * 89875517873681764.000000000000001
If I read the paper e/s charge per second for the electron is
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
okay I think i get this please correct any misunderstandings you find.
joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s<(energy of 1 joule in e/s) * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 <(energy of electron @ rest in joules not distance)
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s (is this Mass of the electron in e/s?)
Where is the distance?
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s (Mass of electron in e/s?)/ 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s (e/s of 1 kilogram?)
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg (Mass of electron)
It would be helpful if he would denote by each value of (e/s) what the hell it is. I don't like when people write in a bunch of undefined variables it is annoying ( i can get the general gist) I like it even less when people write in a bunch of undefined values especially long numbers. It makes it hard to follow.
As far as Tao summation is concerned I do not see the benefit yet. Ambiguous is Ambiguous and Ambiguous is not useful. It's like numerology fine for non physical fortune telling where ambiguity is the point but not useful for programming a computer where ambiguity leads to errors and mistakes. It could be that I am missing the point.
QUOTE
It would be helpful if he would denote by each value of (e/s) what the hell it is. I don't like when people write in a bunch of undefined variables it is annoying ( i can get the general gist) I like it even less when people write in a bunch of undefined values especially long numbers. It makes it hard to follow.
That's the entire point of Tao, it is uncertain. He has an article in the works that will explain at a mathematical level what he is actually doing, I think the target for release is sometime within the next 24 hours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It would be helpful if he would denote by each value of (e/s) what the hell it is. I don't like when people write in a bunch of undefined variables it is annoying ( i can get the general gist) I like it even less when people write in a bunch of undefined values especially long numbers. It makes it hard to follow. |
That's the entire point of Tao, it is uncertain. He has an article in the works that will explain at a mathematical level what he is actually doing, I think the target for release is sometime within the next 24 hours.
joule (e/s) * distance (e/s) = Mass (e/s) (aka E=MC^2)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s<(energy of 1 joule in e/s) * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 <(energy of electron @ rest in joules not distance)
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s (is this Mass of the electron in e/s?)
Where is the distance?
This formula is denoted in what DeepThought has referred to as Tao version 1, which is like a liquid form of Euclidean-based geometry. In this version of Tao, the transforms are dynamic and not shown in the equations. When we look at this:
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 <(energy of electron @ rest in joules not distance)
...technically we are looking at distance, but from a different point of view. Conventionally, we think of this as a unit change, in Tao we would state that the transform changes the number of particles and energy distribution.
Anyway, I think you are right :
joule (e/s) * energy of electron (e/s) = distance (e/s)
It must be a typo, because the math itself is correct. I got it from DeepThought, so I think we are seeing rough notes that have not been proof read. Rather than hiding the errors in development, he's actually revealing them, just in case other people spot different relationships.
I just received an email from DeepThought on Tao and why some of the formulas appear to be balancing in odd ways. He's exploring the notion of an extended form of relativity that maintains the conservation of energy. He said there are hints of it in the data, but it needs to be refined before he could even consider supporting the notion.
A new article is out, if you are serious in understanding this work then this provides the mathematical basis for it:
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/29/12479834-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-three
deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/29/12479834-the-electronic-electrical-engineers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics-part-three
Leave the uncertainty out there is no uncertainty.
When @ rest Matter travels through Time @ C therefore the distance an electron travels through time is the e/s.
When @ rest Light travels through space @ C
IMO Tao (?) is mumbo jumbo to designed give the author creative licence to describe something he does not yet understand.
The only thing uncertain is the relative energies two particles will have when they meet and Einstein solved that problem with General Relativity (gravity) and Special Relativity (relative speed).
If the author can do that with e/s then it may hold some merit otherwise it is useless.
I am not opposed to the exploration of e/s charge per second there could be something there and how will we know unless we look. I think it is a novel form of examination. but like I said before if the results do not match or best time tested and proven physics then it is a dead end.
When @ rest Matter travels through Time @ C therefore the distance an electron travels through time is the e/s.
When @ rest Light travels through space @ C
IMO Tao (?) is mumbo jumbo to designed give the author creative licence to describe something he does not yet understand.
The only thing uncertain is the relative energies two particles will have when they meet and Einstein solved that problem with General Relativity (gravity) and Special Relativity (relative speed).
If the author can do that with e/s then it may hold some merit otherwise it is useless.
I am not opposed to the exploration of e/s charge per second there could be something there and how will we know unless we look. I think it is a novel form of examination. but like I said before if the results do not match or best time tested and proven physics then it is a dead end.
QUOTE
Leave the uncertainty out there is no uncertainty.
That is not quite true. Our measurement system is based upon ranges between values this leads to inherent inaccuracies, or the observer effect. Mass occurs within space-time and must exchange particles which are constantly in motion, there is thus a delay and a relativistic behavior, this all leads to values in flux. Further, the matter wave nature leads to a probabilistic exchange of this particles, which further increases the flux.
The effect is tiny, but present.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Leave the uncertainty out there is no uncertainty. |
That is not quite true. Our measurement system is based upon ranges between values this leads to inherent inaccuracies, or the observer effect. Mass occurs within space-time and must exchange particles which are constantly in motion, there is thus a delay and a relativistic behavior, this all leads to values in flux. Further, the matter wave nature leads to a probabilistic exchange of this particles, which further increases the flux.
The effect is tiny, but present.
When @ rest Matter travels through Time @ C therefore the distance an electron travels through time is the e/s.
When @ rest Light travels through space @ C
This does not make sense, matter cannot travel at C and light cannot be considered at rest. The latter is a classical notion, there is no such thing as "at rest".
QUOTE
IMO Tao (?) is mumbo jumbo to designed give the author creative licence to describe something he does not yet understand.
Have you read the last article?
Far from being mumbo jumbo, it is the basis upon which all mathematical systems have their foundation. Can you describe what Tao is and show an example? I want to see if you have misunderstood the mathematical theory behind it. Its easy done given the way this has developed.
Keep in mind that Tao and the version of Tao he was using are related but different concepts. For example, contemporary math is also a form of Tao.
Let's check this first.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
IMO Tao (?) is mumbo jumbo to designed give the author creative licence to describe something he does not yet understand. |
Have you read the last article?
Far from being mumbo jumbo, it is the basis upon which all mathematical systems have their foundation. Can you describe what Tao is and show an example? I want to see if you have misunderstood the mathematical theory behind it. Its easy done given the way this has developed.
Keep in mind that Tao and the version of Tao he was using are related but different concepts. For example, contemporary math is also a form of Tao.
Let's check this first.
The only thing uncertain is the relative energies two particles will have when they meet and Einstein solved that problem with General Relativity (gravity) and Special Relativity (relative speed).
That is a very old interpretation based upon classical physics. The modern interpretation is that of the wave-function, which is defined as a probability. This leads to these statements:
"At a fundamental level, everything in the universe behaves like a little probability wave."
"The entire universe should actually have one giant, ridiculously complex wave function..."
http://io9.com/5528321/how-smart-do-you-ne...a-wave-function
Since a wave-function is a probability, then a universe is one giant probability and every particle has a certain probability of being that particle. Until measured, it is everything at once and every aspect of reality from Mass to Time is always uncertain.
This is the concept behind Tao.
QUOTE
If the author can do that with e/s then it may hold some merit otherwise it is useless.
It can be done, contemporary math is a form of Tao and it works there. With these other version of Tao, the author is demonstrating that we can shatter the rules of math and still have a functioning descriptive system. Not only that, but this new approach is more suitable to describing a system whose relationships are constantly in flux.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If the author can do that with e/s then it may hold some merit otherwise it is useless. |
It can be done, contemporary math is a form of Tao and it works there. With these other version of Tao, the author is demonstrating that we can shatter the rules of math and still have a functioning descriptive system. Not only that, but this new approach is more suitable to describing a system whose relationships are constantly in flux.
I am not opposed to the exploration of e/s charge per second there could be something there and how will we know unless we look. I think it is a novel form of examination. but like I said before if the results do not match or best time tested and proven physics then it is a dead end.
ok, I think you have missed the point of the latest article. He is not exploring "charge per second", he was using that as the basis of a coordinate system (a type of space like Hilbert, Minkowski, etc) then basically melting or liquefying mathematical relationships (which he demonstrates are transforms) to represent the fact that real relationships are in flux.
Its a more dynamic version of math.
Okay so I gave up and proofed it for him.
e/s units
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second = 1 e/s
Coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
Ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 e/s
Electron 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Proton 5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 e/s
SI units
Electron Mass: 9.10938291E−31 Kg
Proton Mass: 1.672621777E−27 Kg
C=299792458
with V=299792450
Using Electron Mass
Einstein
E=MC^2/1-SQRTV^2/C^2=3.06804043391236E-06 Joules
Electron Mass=9.10938291E-31
Electron Joules=8.18710506545916E-14
Electron e/s=3,189,404,999,071,770,000,000,000
Electron Mass=Electron(e/s)/Kilogram (e/s)=9.10938291E-31
Energy (e/s)electron=Joule(e/s)*energy joules=3.18940499907177E+24(e/s)
Relativistic energy in (e/s)=electron (e/s)/1/sqrt(v^2)/(C^2)=1.1952E+32(e/s)
Relativistic energy in joules=electron (e/s)/1/sqrt(v^2)/(C^2)/Joules(e/s)=3.06804043391236E-06 joules
There may be a gravitational solution here needs further investigation.
Damn complicated.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
e/s units
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second = 1 e/s
Coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
Ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 e/s
Electron 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s
Proton 5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 e/s
SI units
Electron Mass: 9.10938291E−31 Kg
Proton Mass: 1.672621777E−27 Kg
C=299792458
with V=299792450
Using Electron Mass
Einstein
E=MC^2/1-SQRTV^2/C^2=3.06804043391236E-06 Joules
Electron Mass=9.10938291E-31
Electron Joules=8.18710506545916E-14
Electron e/s=3,189,404,999,071,770,000,000,000
Electron Mass=Electron(e/s)/Kilogram (e/s)=9.10938291E-31
Energy (e/s)electron=Joule(e/s)*energy joules=3.18940499907177E+24(e/s)
Relativistic energy in (e/s)=electron (e/s)/1/sqrt(v^2)/(C^2)=1.1952E+32(e/s)
Relativistic energy in joules=electron (e/s)/1/sqrt(v^2)/(C^2)/Joules(e/s)=3.06804043391236E-06 joules
There may be a gravitational solution here needs further investigation.
Damn complicated.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
Ain't that the truth.
I have something that may help. DeepThought cleaned up some of his notes and sent this to me. This should now make more sense and it seems to clearly show that this approach is valid:
I have cleaned up some of the equations, corrected notes and provided a little insight into this math. This math has been defined as EC-Particle-Space (or Elementary Charge-Particle-Space) and is derived from Tao. Contemporary math is also derived from Tao, as is any and all forms of math and descriptive languages. The main difference between this type of math and contemporary math is that formulas do not need to balance, values can vanish from equations and there are new operators to learn.
Derived Conversion Values
Positive Charge
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second = 1 e/s
Coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
Ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 e/s
Negative Charge
meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 -e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
second = 1 -e/s
coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 -e/s
joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 -e/s
ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 -e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 -e/s
Notes: These values, whilst in the same units, do not have a one-to-one relationship.
Mass-Current-Space Equivelence Equation
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 -e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Notes: This formula is partially incorrect, the output must be tranformed to the meter through a different mechanism. This formula above is:
Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2).
In the end, it is "still distance", but in the transform of Mass. So, perhaps we should add something to denote this:
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Conversion To "Something Unkown"
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) / Joule (e/s) = ??? (No idea yet!)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
Notes: This is"something unknown" in the transform of Mass. So, we should define it as:
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) / Joule (e/s) = ???_T_Mass (e/s)
Now we have a choice of conversion methods, Contemporary Math or Tao Math. Choose one.
Conversion to the Kilogram (Contemporary Math)
joule (e/s) * "something unknown" (e/s) = Mass (e/s)
same as: joule (e/s) * ???_T_Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Note: This step should be very obvious, we are just reversing the previous step. It may seem stupid, but the value is used in the Tao math equation. We could just use the value of the Mass from the first equation.
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Conversion to the Kilogram (Using Tao Math)
Calculate Ratio
Joules:kilogram
3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
= 89,875,517,873,681,764 e/s
Multiply "something unknown" (???_T_Mass (e/s)) by Joules to kilogram ratio (referred to "msubjtkr" in the below formulas)
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s * 89,875,517,873,681,764 e/s
= 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 -e/s
Derive Unknown Value X
This is the formula that we need to solve:
???_T_Mass (e/s) ((Joule (e/s) / kilogram (e/s)) + x) = Mass (e/s) - msubjtkr (e/s)
This is a worked example (note how we just drop -msubjtkr (e/s) without balancing the equation)
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ((3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37) + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 (89,875,517,873,681,764 + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 / 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ?=( 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
This new operator =( is Tao-Inverse-Equality. It means to invert the values to the right. (A type of "Not gate" - I'll explain later in another post.)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 - 89,875,517,873,681,764 = X
X = 3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 -e/s
Now we test the values we just derived:
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822436 + 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
Finally, we convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Note: The Tao math version may seem like a complex waste of time, but it is very revealing. Firstly, we can chuck the rules of mathematics out the window and still have a functioning system. This has implications for understanding divergent cultures. Next, we have two values X and ???_T_Mass that have not been resolved in terms of what they are. We also have the relationship to the ratio and values derived from the ratio that need to be understood. If you are having difficulty visualizing this type of space, it is somewhat warped or partially melted. Equations do not balance and values can vanish without consequence.
Its a really weird world, but it works and it has its own rules. Math may not be as universal as we would like to believe, but more to do with our perceptions.
I have something that may help. DeepThought cleaned up some of his notes and sent this to me. This should now make more sense and it seems to clearly show that this approach is valid:
QUOTE
I have cleaned up some of the equations, corrected notes and provided a little insight into this math. This math has been defined as EC-Particle-Space (or Elementary Charge-Particle-Space) and is derived from Tao. Contemporary math is also derived from Tao, as is any and all forms of math and descriptive languages. The main difference between this type of math and contemporary math is that formulas do not need to balance, values can vanish from equations and there are new operators to learn.
Derived Conversion Values
Positive Charge
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second = 1 e/s
Coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
Ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 e/s
Negative Charge
meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 -e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
second = 1 -e/s
coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 -e/s
joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 -e/s
ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 -e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 -e/s
Notes: These values, whilst in the same units, do not have a one-to-one relationship.
Mass-Current-Space Equivelence Equation
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 -e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Notes: This formula is partially incorrect, the output must be tranformed to the meter through a different mechanism. This formula above is:
Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2).
In the end, it is "still distance", but in the transform of Mass. So, perhaps we should add something to denote this:
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Conversion To "Something Unkown"
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) / Joule (e/s) = ??? (No idea yet!)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
Notes: This is"something unknown" in the transform of Mass. So, we should define it as:
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) / Joule (e/s) = ???_T_Mass (e/s)
Now we have a choice of conversion methods, Contemporary Math or Tao Math. Choose one.
Conversion to the Kilogram (Contemporary Math)
joule (e/s) * "something unknown" (e/s) = Mass (e/s)
same as: joule (e/s) * ???_T_Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Note: This step should be very obvious, we are just reversing the previous step. It may seem stupid, but the value is used in the Tao math equation. We could just use the value of the Mass from the first equation.
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Conversion to the Kilogram (Using Tao Math)
Calculate Ratio
Joules:kilogram
3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
= 89,875,517,873,681,764 e/s
Multiply "something unknown" (???_T_Mass (e/s)) by Joules to kilogram ratio (referred to "msubjtkr" in the below formulas)
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s * 89,875,517,873,681,764 e/s
= 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 -e/s
Derive Unknown Value X
This is the formula that we need to solve:
???_T_Mass (e/s) ((Joule (e/s) / kilogram (e/s)) + x) = Mass (e/s) - msubjtkr (e/s)
This is a worked example (note how we just drop -msubjtkr (e/s) without balancing the equation)
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ((3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37) + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 (89,875,517,873,681,764 + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 / 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ?=( 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
This new operator =( is Tao-Inverse-Equality. It means to invert the values to the right. (A type of "Not gate" - I'll explain later in another post.)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 - 89,875,517,873,681,764 = X
X = 3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 -e/s
Now we test the values we just derived:
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822436 + 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
Finally, we convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Note: The Tao math version may seem like a complex waste of time, but it is very revealing. Firstly, we can chuck the rules of mathematics out the window and still have a functioning system. This has implications for understanding divergent cultures. Next, we have two values X and ???_T_Mass that have not been resolved in terms of what they are. We also have the relationship to the ratio and values derived from the ratio that need to be understood. If you are having difficulty visualizing this type of space, it is somewhat warped or partially melted. Equations do not balance and values can vanish without consequence.
Its a really weird world, but it works and it has its own rules. Math may not be as universal as we would like to believe, but more to do with our perceptions.
I'm not buying the Tao thingy.
Charge per second or length in space-time or unit (e/s) is okay it follows the rules of math and IMO describes a certain physical reality that seems as it is @ the heart of everything. I think I can use it in some of my own work. It passed my first test.
=) is unnecessary and a lazy shortcut as it will balance out if he did his math correctly. Not to mention that it adds confusion where none is needed. These are real values and as such will follow the the rules of math. I am glad th decided to put the physical (e/s) equivalents in one spot.
Tao ? is fine if you want to make approximations but if you wish to describe real physics you need to proof your work with real math. Sorry that is the way it works. Introducing confusion is not helpful to your work.
I will call bullcrap on this statement. You want to call it Elementary Charge-Particle-Space fine but saying contemporary math is derived from Tao is bullcrap. Equations need to balance if they don't they are in error.
Charge per second or length in space-time or unit (e/s) is okay it follows the rules of math and IMO describes a certain physical reality that seems as it is @ the heart of everything. I think I can use it in some of my own work. It passed my first test.
=) is unnecessary and a lazy shortcut as it will balance out if he did his math correctly. Not to mention that it adds confusion where none is needed. These are real values and as such will follow the the rules of math. I am glad th decided to put the physical (e/s) equivalents in one spot.
Tao ? is fine if you want to make approximations but if you wish to describe real physics you need to proof your work with real math. Sorry that is the way it works. Introducing confusion is not helpful to your work.
QUOTE
Contemporary math is also derived from Tao, as is any and all forms of math and descriptive languages. The main difference between this type of math and contemporary math is that formulas do not need to balance, values can vanish from equations and there are new operators to learn.
I will call bullcrap on this statement. You want to call it Elementary Charge-Particle-Space fine but saying contemporary math is derived from Tao is bullcrap. Equations need to balance if they don't they are in error.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Jul 3 2012, 11:45 AM)
I'm not buying the Tao thingy.
Charge per second or length in space-time or unit (e/s) is okay it follows the rules of math and IMO describes a certain physical reality that seems as it is @ the heart of everything. I think I can use it in some of my own work. It passed my first test.
=) is unnecessary and a lazy shortcut as it will balance out if he did his math correctly. Not to mention that it adds confusion where none is needed. These are real values and as such will follow the the rules of math. I am glad th decided to put the physical (e/s) equivalents in one spot.
Tao ? is fine if you want to make approximations but if you wish to describe real physics you need to proof your work with real math. Sorry that is the way it works. Introducing confusion is not helpful to your work.
I will call bullcrap on this statement. You want to call it Elementary Charge-Particle-Space fine but saying contemporary math is derived from Tao is bullcrap. Equations need to balance if they don't they are in error.
Fair enough, but can you support your assertion that "equations need to balance"?
or can you support this statement "saying contemporary math is derived from Tao is bullcrap"???
I would like to see some evidence.
Charge per second or length in space-time or unit (e/s) is okay it follows the rules of math and IMO describes a certain physical reality that seems as it is @ the heart of everything. I think I can use it in some of my own work. It passed my first test.
=) is unnecessary and a lazy shortcut as it will balance out if he did his math correctly. Not to mention that it adds confusion where none is needed. These are real values and as such will follow the the rules of math. I am glad th decided to put the physical (e/s) equivalents in one spot.
Tao ? is fine if you want to make approximations but if you wish to describe real physics you need to proof your work with real math. Sorry that is the way it works. Introducing confusion is not helpful to your work.
I will call bullcrap on this statement. You want to call it Elementary Charge-Particle-Space fine but saying contemporary math is derived from Tao is bullcrap. Equations need to balance if they don't they are in error.
Fair enough, but can you support your assertion that "equations need to balance"?
or can you support this statement "saying contemporary math is derived from Tao is bullcrap"???
I would like to see some evidence.
I asked DeepThought about this...
The idea that equations need to balance is based upon a weak understanding of the foundations of mathematics. A balanced equation is what we could describe as a "uniform transform" or a rotation that maintains proportion.
Basically, think of a spinning cube. As we rotate it, it remains the same.
In EC-Particle-Space, if we were to rotate the same cube, its shape, dimensions and area would change as it rotates.
This is not something that we would define as "wrong", it is just a different way of viewing the same thing but from the perspective of a different form of space. In doing so, we will begin to see things that are normally hidden from view. That is, we will see things that are only visible from this form of space.
Are we saying we are in a different dimension, looking at our universe?
I think we need to understand that a "uniform transform" is a lie of the macro world and human perception. In EC-Particle-Space, we are really looking at the Universe from the perspective of a wave-function or particle.
This will obviously take some time to get your heads around.
QUOTE
The idea that equations need to balance is based upon a weak understanding of the foundations of mathematics. A balanced equation is what we could describe as a "uniform transform" or a rotation that maintains proportion.
Basically, think of a spinning cube. As we rotate it, it remains the same.
In EC-Particle-Space, if we were to rotate the same cube, its shape, dimensions and area would change as it rotates.
This is not something that we would define as "wrong", it is just a different way of viewing the same thing but from the perspective of a different form of space. In doing so, we will begin to see things that are normally hidden from view. That is, we will see things that are only visible from this form of space.
Are we saying we are in a different dimension, looking at our universe?
I think we need to understand that a "uniform transform" is a lie of the macro world and human perception. In EC-Particle-Space, we are really looking at the Universe from the perspective of a wave-function or particle.
This will obviously take some time to get your heads around.
This is just more crank nonsense.
It would be so nice to have a real moderator here.
It would be so nice to have a real moderator here.
It would be so nice if everyone thought the same way.
It would be so nice if everyone posted reasoned rebuttals to nonsense.
It would be so nice if everyone kept on topic and started new threads for other topics.
My priorities:
1) Spam
2) Abuse
3) People who quote entire posts to add a general comment
4) Anti-science
I don't get to 4 when people exhaust my confidence in their better natures with #2.
It would be so nice if everyone posted reasoned rebuttals to nonsense.
It would be so nice if everyone kept on topic and started new threads for other topics.
My priorities:
1) Spam
2) Abuse
3) People who quote entire posts to add a general comment
4) Anti-science
I don't get to 4 when people exhaust my confidence in their better natures with #2.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 3 2012, 01:56 PM)
This is just more crank nonsense.
It would be so nice to have a real moderator here.
Can you state your reasons why you think this?
It would be so nice to have a real moderator here.
Can you state your reasons why you think this?
Tao math is cranky nonsense. ? is not a valid math operator, neither is =( it is just a funny sad face emoticon.
AlexG probably thinks e/s is cranky too. I would disagree with him on that point.
To be honest it may turn out to be total crankery. However, after a cursory look I believe it deserves a closer look. The e/s units make sense with the conversion definitions. Quantized time seems to be valid all the units seem to be convertible between mass and energy.
I will put some more work into trying to make it make useful beyond supposition. I may be able to use it for gravity as I have been looking for a way to truly quantize energy, mass, and time in 1 2D unit for some time now. this e/s charge or length in time may be the unit I have been looking for.
AlexG probably thinks e/s is cranky too. I would disagree with him on that point.
To be honest it may turn out to be total crankery. However, after a cursory look I believe it deserves a closer look. The e/s units make sense with the conversion definitions. Quantized time seems to be valid all the units seem to be convertible between mass and energy.
I will put some more work into trying to make it make useful beyond supposition. I may be able to use it for gravity as I have been looking for a way to truly quantize energy, mass, and time in 1 2D unit for some time now. this e/s charge or length in time may be the unit I have been looking for.
QUOTE
Tao math is cranky nonsense. ? is not a valid math operator, neither is =( it is just a funny sad face emoticon.
They are valid operators when transforms (or equations) are not based upon equality. The ? defines that you are using Tao and ?=( is from EC-Particle-Space.
If it was nonsense, you simply could not work with it, nor demonstrate equations (or transforms) which lead to accurate values in contemporary math.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Tao math is cranky nonsense. ? is not a valid math operator, neither is =( it is just a funny sad face emoticon. |
They are valid operators when transforms (or equations) are not based upon equality. The ? defines that you are using Tao and ?=( is from EC-Particle-Space.
If it was nonsense, you simply could not work with it, nor demonstrate equations (or transforms) which lead to accurate values in contemporary math.
AlexG probably thinks e/s is cranky too. I would disagree with him on that point.
He would really need to explain this. I feel it is more a failure to read the work in any great depth and, as a result, he's developed odd views of what e/s really means, how the math works or why it makes sense.
QUOTE
To be honest it may turn out to be total crankery. However, after a cursory look I believe it deserves a closer look. The e/s units make sense with the conversion definitions. Quantized time seems to be valid all the units seem to be convertible between mass and energy.
The e/s unit is just an arbitrary reference point. To get a full picture of the quantum world, you would need to create Tao spaces for every unit, derive the mathematical rules and then integrate the various spaces into one unified model.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
To be honest it may turn out to be total crankery. However, after a cursory look I believe it deserves a closer look. The e/s units make sense with the conversion definitions. Quantized time seems to be valid all the units seem to be convertible between mass and energy. |
The e/s unit is just an arbitrary reference point. To get a full picture of the quantum world, you would need to create Tao spaces for every unit, derive the mathematical rules and then integrate the various spaces into one unified model.
I will put some more work into trying to make it make useful beyond supposition. I may be able to use it for gravity as I have been looking for a way to truly quantize energy, mass, and time in 1 2D unit for some time now. this e/s charge or length in time may be the unit I have been looking for.
It is already well beyond supposition, it has functional and defined relationships. Gravity will only emerge from an integration of General Relativity with Quantum mechanics. That's what DeepThought is doing.
I may have to eat some crow.
I have previously stated flatly that the Higgs Boson does not exist.
Most of my opposition to the Higgs Boson was due to my believing it was not necessary or that if there was a Higgs Boson there was only 1 that encompasses
the whole universe and as such would never be found.
It may still not exist, however given this e/s hypothesis I now see the need for a Higgs Boson. IMO for particles (having mass) to be discreet and have mass
there needs to be a Higgs Boson if not Light would not be mass-less.
See the thing is with light when you say E=MC^2 M=0
so you say where E=Energy and v=frequency and λ=wavelength h=Planck's constant = 6.626068E-34 m2 kg / s
E=h*c/λ or E=h*v
h*C=Planck's constant * the speed of light = 1.98644521E-25 m3 kg / s2
so a photon with an energy of 8.187 104 38(41)×10−14 Joules
is not an electron.
Its' rest (e/s) energy in joules is the same but it's (e/s) Mass is 0 which would only make sense if there were a container in which the energy were trapped inducing a mass.
That probably sounds convoluted.
I am not married to it. I need to think on it some more. It seemed clear when I woke up this morning.
Maybe you should call it Higgs space.
QUOTE
I may have to eat some crow. I have previously stated flatly that the Higgs Boson does not exist. Most of my opposition to the Higgs Boson was due to my believing it was not necessary or that if there was a Higgs Boson there was only 1 that encompasses the whole universe and as such would never be found. It may still not exist, however given this e/s hypothesis I now see the need for a Higgs Boson. IMO for particles (having mass) to be discreet and have mass there needs to be a Higgs Boson if not Light would not be mass-less.
You are beginning to see that in quantized space particles obtain characteristics due to interactions with other particles. Further, that the lack of a characterisitic (such as a photon without Mass) is due to a lack of interaction.
This is what DeepThought defines as "mechanisms".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I may have to eat some crow. I have previously stated flatly that the Higgs Boson does not exist. Most of my opposition to the Higgs Boson was due to my believing it was not necessary or that if there was a Higgs Boson there was only 1 that encompasses the whole universe and as such would never be found. It may still not exist, however given this e/s hypothesis I now see the need for a Higgs Boson. IMO for particles (having mass) to be discreet and have mass there needs to be a Higgs Boson if not Light would not be mass-less. |
You are beginning to see that in quantized space particles obtain characteristics due to interactions with other particles. Further, that the lack of a characterisitic (such as a photon without Mass) is due to a lack of interaction.
This is what DeepThought defines as "mechanisms".
so you say where E=Energy and v=frequency and λ=wavelength h=Planck's constant = 6.626068E-34 m2 kg / s
E=h*c/λ or E=h*v
h*C=Planck's constant * the speed of light = 1.98644521E-25 m3 kg / s2
so a photon with an energy of 8.187 104 38(41)×10−14 Joules is not an electron. Its' rest (e/s) energy in joules is the same but it's (e/s) Mass is 0 which would only make sense if there were a container in which the energy were trapped inducing a mass.
I think you are getting it. Now, if we wanted to integrate these two equations:
E = MC^2
E=hv
...we need to eliminate zero from mathematics. This would allows us to deal with situations where either no Mass or no photons exist.
QUOTE
Maybe you should call it Higgs space.
It does help with understanding the Higg's mechanism, which it then applies to everything. But since it is not restricted to the Higgs and currently defined in terms of e/s, its probably best left defined as EC-Particle-Space.
st2012
What would the conversion to e/s be for Planks constant?
Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^-34*m^2*kg/s
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second = 1 e/s
Would it be
h=6.626068e-34*3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9^2*3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54/1=25812.8046903282
h(e/s)=25812.8046903282
Not sure if that will work or not.
If so you should be able to multiply that by frequency and get Joules(e/s) then convert to Joules.
When I get some more time I'll try it. We'll see.
What would the conversion to e/s be for Planks constant?
Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^-34*m^2*kg/s
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second = 1 e/s
Would it be
h=6.626068e-34*3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9^2*3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54/1=25812.8046903282
h(e/s)=25812.8046903282
Not sure if that will work or not.
If so you should be able to multiply that by frequency and get Joules(e/s) then convert to Joules.
When I get some more time I'll try it. We'll see.
interesting thread . got to come back later . So that is why i am commenting . So it is easier for me to find later . closer look later
Ok so I found this value related to Quantum Hall Effect.
1 Klitzing = 25812.80
or
RK = h/e^2 = 25812.807557(18)
Well since I am not a statistics guy I guess the question is is this within (18)?
h(e/s)=25812.8046903282 = 1 Klitzing,RK?
1 Klitzing = 25812.80
or
RK = h/e^2 = 25812.807557(18)
Well since I am not a statistics guy I guess the question is is this within (18)?
h(e/s)=25812.8046903282 = 1 Klitzing,RK?
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Aug 15 2012, 01:51 AM)
Ok so I found this value related to Quantum Hall Effect.
1 Klitzing = 25812.80
or
RK = h/e^2 = 25812.807557(18)
Well since I am not a statistics guy I guess the question is is this within (18)?
h(e/s)=25812.8046903282 = 1 Klitzing,RK?
This is a place holder for my thought process as I am stuck @ the moment.
I tend to be more trusting of the RK constant number than the (e/s) However small the difference between the (e/s) and the RK numbers the difference could mean something or not. May have to go back and verify the (e/s) values with more current definitions or better yet throw in all the units and test for anomalies. I am not totally convinced that Excel is calculating the values correctly either.
some notes:
von Klitzing Constant RK = h/e^2 = 25812.807557(18) Ω
Accepted and used worldwide for resistance calibration.
h in (e/s) units 25812.8046903282
Okay something may be missing h in (e/s) units is 0.0028666718 smaller than RK
RK is tested and used around the world for resistance calibration
Von Klitzings' original value 25812.80
elementary charge = 1.60217646E-19 coulombs
6.626068E-34*m^2*kg /s/e^2=RK
Need to gather all the units in the coulomb and finish the math to test equivalency unit wise.
I almost positive it is all in there somewhere.
1 Klitzing = 25812.80
or
RK = h/e^2 = 25812.807557(18)
Well since I am not a statistics guy I guess the question is is this within (18)?
h(e/s)=25812.8046903282 = 1 Klitzing,RK?
This is a place holder for my thought process as I am stuck @ the moment.
I tend to be more trusting of the RK constant number than the (e/s) However small the difference between the (e/s) and the RK numbers the difference could mean something or not. May have to go back and verify the (e/s) values with more current definitions or better yet throw in all the units and test for anomalies. I am not totally convinced that Excel is calculating the values correctly either.
some notes:
von Klitzing Constant RK = h/e^2 = 25812.807557(18) Ω
Accepted and used worldwide for resistance calibration.
h in (e/s) units 25812.8046903282
Okay something may be missing h in (e/s) units is 0.0028666718 smaller than RK
RK is tested and used around the world for resistance calibration
Von Klitzings' original value 25812.80
elementary charge = 1.60217646E-19 coulombs
6.626068E-34*m^2*kg /s/e^2=RK
Need to gather all the units in the coulomb and finish the math to test equivalency unit wise.
I almost positive it is all in there somewhere.
DeepThought realized he left out one of the formulas in this set of equations. There was a sudden jump that had not be explained just after X was derived.
He sent me this corrected version...
Derived Conversion Values
Positive Charge
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second = 1 e/s
Coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
Ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 e/s
Negative Charge
meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 -e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
second = 1 -e/s
coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 -e/s
joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 -e/s
ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 -e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 -e/s
Notes: These values, whilst in the same units, do not have a one-to-one relationship.
Mass-Current-Space Equivalence Equation
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 -e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Notes: This formula is partially incorrect, the output must be tranformed to the meter through a different mechanism. This formula above is:
Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2).
In the end, it is "still distance", but in the transform of Mass. So, perhaps we should add something to denote this:
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Conversion To "Something Unknown"
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) / Joule (e/s) = ??? (No idea yet!)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
Notes: This is"something unknown" in the transform of Mass. So, we should define it as:
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) / Joule (e/s) = ???_T_Mass (e/s)
Now we have a choice of conversion methods, Contemporary Math or Tao Math. Choose one.
Conversion to the Kilogram (Contemporary Math)
joule (e/s) * "something unknown" (e/s) = Mass (e/s)
same as: joule (e/s) * ???_T_Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Note: This step should be very obvious, we are just reversing the previous step. It may seem stupid, but the value is used in the Tao math equation. We could just use the value of the Mass from the first equation.
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Conversion to the Kilogram (Using Tao Math)
Calculate Ratio
Joules:kilogram
3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
= 89,875,517,873,681,764 e/s
Multiply "something unknown" (???_T_Mass (e/s)) by Joules to kilogram ratio (referred to "msubjtkr" in the below formulas)
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s * 89,875,517,873,681,764 e/s
= 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 -e/s
Derive Unknown Value X
This is the formula that we need to solve:
???_T_Mass (e/s) ((Joule (e/s) / kilogram (e/s)) + x) = Mass (e/s) - msubjtkr (e/s)
This is a worked example (note how we just drop -msubjtkr (e/s) without balancing the equation)
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ((3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37) + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 (89,875,517,873,681,764 + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 / 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ?=( 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
This new operator =( is Tao-Inverse-Equality. It means to invert the values to the right. (A type of "Not gate" - I'll explain later in another post.)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 - 89,875,517,873,681,764 = X
X = 3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 -e/s
3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 -e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822435
Now we test the values we just derived:
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822435 + 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
Finally, we convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Guys, I will have a look at your comments and get back to you on them. Something interesting has happened, it looks like the University of Melbourne have suggested something DeepThought was working on in 2010 may be accurate. That is, the big bang is a thermodynamic loss or freezing.
He sent me this corrected version...
QUOTE
Derived Conversion Values
Positive Charge
Meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second = 1 e/s
Coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s
Joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
Ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 e/s
Negative Charge
meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 -e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
second = 1 -e/s
coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 -e/s
joule = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 -e/s
ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 -e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 -e/s
Notes: These values, whilst in the same units, do not have a one-to-one relationship.
Mass-Current-Space Equivalence Equation
Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Electron
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 -e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Notes: This formula is partially incorrect, the output must be tranformed to the meter through a different mechanism. This formula above is:
Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2).
In the end, it is "still distance", but in the transform of Mass. So, perhaps we should add something to denote this:
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)
Conversion To "Something Unknown"
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) / Joule (e/s) = ??? (No idea yet!)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
Notes: This is"something unknown" in the transform of Mass. So, we should define it as:
Distance_T_Mass (e/s) / Joule (e/s) = ???_T_Mass (e/s)
Now we have a choice of conversion methods, Contemporary Math or Tao Math. Choose one.
Conversion to the Kilogram (Contemporary Math)
joule (e/s) * "something unknown" (e/s) = Mass (e/s)
same as: joule (e/s) * ???_T_Mass (e/s) = Mass (e/s)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s
= 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
Note: This step should be very obvious, we are just reversing the previous step. It may seem stupid, but the value is used in the Tao math equation. We could just use the value of the Mass from the first equation.
To convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Conversion to the Kilogram (Using Tao Math)
Calculate Ratio
Joules:kilogram
3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
= 89,875,517,873,681,764 e/s
Multiply "something unknown" (???_T_Mass (e/s)) by Joules to kilogram ratio (referred to "msubjtkr" in the below formulas)
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 -e/s * 89,875,517,873,681,764 e/s
= 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 -e/s
Derive Unknown Value X
This is the formula that we need to solve:
???_T_Mass (e/s) ((Joule (e/s) / kilogram (e/s)) + x) = Mass (e/s) - msubjtkr (e/s)
This is a worked example (note how we just drop -msubjtkr (e/s) without balancing the equation)
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ((3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 / 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37) + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s
8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 (89,875,517,873,681,764 + X) = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 / 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 ?=( 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
This new operator =( is Tao-Inverse-Equality. It means to invert the values to the right. (A type of "Not gate" - I'll explain later in another post.)
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 + X
3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 - 89,875,517,873,681,764 = X
X = 3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 -e/s
3.8956443988091139382751586412645e+37 -e/s * 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822435
Now we test the values we just derived:
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,632,095.7822435 + 7,358.203076443854225649764839864 = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532
Finally, we convert the Mass from e/s to Kg:
Mass (e/s) / Kilogram (e/s)
3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s / 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
= 9.1093829100000000000000000000001e-31 Kg
Guys, I will have a look at your comments and get back to you on them. Something interesting has happened, it looks like the University of Melbourne have suggested something DeepThought was working on in 2010 may be accurate. That is, the big bang is a thermodynamic loss or freezing.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.