|
|
Re: meforce
Posted:
Jan 23, 2013 6:37 PM
|
|
On Jan 16, 7:45 pm, Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Given E=mc^2 and f=dp/dt.
> Now go play with the Universe.
[Please not the change in newsgroups. Ok...]
If the line between science fiction and science fact
doesn't drive you crazy, then you're just not trying!
John A. Wheeler hand wrote:
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jaw_scan0011.jpg
?Surely, as you suggest, a poetic thought. How lucky we are to live in
this exciting time of discovery and have the memory of Charles
Darwin?s modest greatness as inspiration.? ? John Archibald Wheeler
(July 22, 1989)
regarding this original version I had mailed him
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/meforceorig.pdf
which I later updated to
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/meforce.pdf
PROVE
RAVEN
OVERT
VERSE
ENTER
{PROVE RAVEN OVERT VERSE ENTER} a rare word square.
http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/whiteboards/ for fun eyes only.
Quoting John D. Barrow from
http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/seminarw.html :
"There is no magic formula that can be called upon to generate all
the possible varieties of these attributes. They are never fully
exhaustible. No program or equation can generate all beauty or all
ugliness: indeed there is no sure way of recognizing either of these
attributes when you see them. The restrictions of mathematics and
logic prevent these prospective properties falling victim to mere
technique even though we can habitually entertain notions of beauty
or ugliness. The prospective properties of things cannot be
trammeled up within any logical Theory of Everything. No non-poetic
account of reality can be complete
There is no formula that can deliver all truth, all harmony, all
simplicity. No Theory of Everything can ever provide total insight,
for to see through everything would leave us seeing nothing at all."
The webpage is missing the period after "... reality can be complete."
"No non-poetic account of reality can be complete." -- John D. Barrow
This thread presents three derivations for the |MEforce> Paradox:
1. The play it backwards again Sam method (1993)
2. The cup is half empty, half full method (1994)
3. The original derivation (1987)
The paradox is: Why do F=pdot and E=mc^2, the two foundations of
modern physics, result in this |meforce>? Purely accidental? I think
not! Is Nature absurd? I hope not.
If you think any or all of this is BS (BullShit, not Before Sagan),
then say so in writing. If you think it's just symbolic artifact with
no basis in physics, math, philosophy, poetry, ... then say so. There
are no ground rules. You won't hurt my feelings. The least you will do
is change <ME>. Change is good. Change is unstoppable. Change is more
than mere MOTION. Put your GUTs into it and try stomp on my TOE! Most
of all, enjoy. It's a big Universe out there and somebody's gotta tame
it.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 c me %%%
Method 1: Sometimes referred to as the Satanic Method.(1993)
Given Einstein's E=mc^2 equation. This is the famous popular
representation. It's an icon of the twentieth century. Take this and
just write it backwards...2^cm=E. 2 c m=E. Use the poetic artistic
license and make the "=" vanishingly small. This leaves 2 c mE. Which
reads as "To see ME", phonetically speaking. QED.
If you are the graphically animated video type, imagine the symbols
dancing before your eyes. By some accident of entropy, the
informational kind, the symbols converge to "2 c mE". Take the "mE" as
a clue.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 c me %%%
Method 2: The cup is half matter and half energy.(1994)
Imagine a cup. It is a container of fluid, perhaps TEA. Let this cup
represent the Space which is the Universe. Space is occupied by matter
and energy. This space is a cup of sorts. Since there is only matter
and energy that the cup can contain, let it.
E=(gamma)m=m taking gamma=1 if v=0. There is no velocity if time is
assumed to be frozen still. The thought experiment does assume time is
frozen so as to paint a instantaneous picture of the Universe. This is
really not a big assumption. Osculating Time may be a name for this
process. But I digress and have introduced unnecessary complexity.
The cup (i.e., space) contains some matter and some energy. The law of
conservation of mass-energy is applicable as always. Besides matter
and energy, what else is there to occupy space? Nothing, I imagine. So
the state of the cup with some matter and some energy represents an
arbitrary state for the Universe. Let time move forward by a
quantifiably measurable amount. Be sure to avoid bumping into Zeno's
Paradox or nothing will change.
At this new time, the state of matter and energy has changed. This
change is due to the natural processes that obey E=m. This means
fusion, photosynthesis, particle-antiparticle pair productions and
annihilations, expansion of the Universe, etc. You name it, E=m
applies
to it.
Conclusion: ME changes from time a to time b.
It's a fact. It's observable, measurable, and a daily reality. Some
of you "pure" physicist types should be glad and thankful that I
didn't include the natural feeling that humans experience as change
into the argument. Consciousness and cognizance and language borders
that "ME" crosses haven't even been addressed. That's why this thread
is cross-posted. I'm a writer, I gotta find readers where ever they
may actually be. So call ME selfish. I am. It's a ME-Centric
Universe. The likes of which hasn't even been conceived before.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 c me %%%
Method 3: The original derivation (1987)
Targeted to mathematicians in particular. Differential Calculus is an
acquired art, after all. No one is born knowing self-adjointness.
Axiom: E=mc^2 where v=0 for only simplicity's sake.
Since E=mc^2, taking the derivative of both sides yields
dE=(c^2)dm+0 since c=constant.
But c^2=E/m. Substituting, yields dE=(E/m)dm. Rearranging,
mdE=Edm
mdE-Edm=0
Imagine the MATHEMATICS if this equation were
mdE+Edm=0
Note the assumed sign change. (No flames yet).
Which means that d(mE)=0. This is the self-adjoint form.
[Aside. Self? Get it? ME and Self? Do you see ME as yourself there?]
But this is an erroneous result since actually mdE-Edm=0.
So since d(mE)=0 is wrong it LOGICALLY means that
d(mE)!=0 (not equal zero; C/C++ notation) is "correct".
This is also an experimentally observed fact of the Universe.
d(mE)!=0 means that the change in mE is not zero. Or mE changes.
Specifically, "mE always changes"==Virdy's law.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 c me %%%
End of derivations. Discussion and speculation follows...
What is mE? Besides the english "ME", mE is mass times energy.
<mE> is the "mean Me", just joking...
<mE> is a product of the Universe. My Mom told "me" so.
Dimensionally mE is momentum squared. Verify by yourself. Oh alright,
I'll do it. (kg)(J)=(kg)(N)(m)=(kg)(kg)(m/s^2)(m)=[(kg)(m/s)]^2.
If momentum changes then, it changes due to an applied force.
Newton's second law. |force>=|d(mv)/dt>. Dirac's notation on vectors.
|force>=|d(momentum)/dt>
So what? Be patient. Apply Newton's rule to get
|force>=|d(sqrt(mE))/dt>.
A real equation for a "hypothetical" force which acts across time. New
idea (at least to <mE>).
Time. Force. TimeForce. Just for the sound of it: Force Across Ti<ME>.
A force across different slices of time? That's crazy... is it really?
Therefore, next time you see E=mc^2 think "2 c <mE>" Virdy's law. Or
just say "mE always changes" and there's a force causing the change.
"May the |force>=|<mE>force> be with you alwa(y)s."
As proof of "me always changes", when you think of <me>, think of:
1) A caterpillar's incredible transformation into a butterfly...
2) The matter*energy product of all our shining suns...
3) You, from even before your moment of conception, until NOW...
Copyright 1994. All rights reserved.
/\/\ /\
\ / \ always changes. The laws of Nature permitting.
/
\/
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/b2oknbosame
Enjo(y)... Cheers!
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.
http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact
doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"
|
|
