Jump to content


- - - - -

The Most Famous Equation Of Them All


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Domenico_*

Guest_Domenico_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2011 - 06:19 PM

I am currently presenting my theory here in the “philosophy of science” and “alternative theories” forums. I think I have already put forward some relevant arguments which were, unfortunately, left unanswered save some side issues for which it was requested and given clarification. Besides this, I hope that all persons of science of this distinguished forum on this particular occasion will get up and be counted, I hope they will participate and get the credit for it.
In any case let it be known that it all started from this forum. It is here, in fact, where I shall prove beyond any reasonable doubt that (I) physical science’s most famous equation was not formulated in accordance to its physical meaning, (II) I shall introduce the most likely candidate to replace the offender; that is, the incongruent c2, and then, only then, (III) reformulate the most famous equation of them all. In the meantime here it is, the old girl in its full glory:

E = m c2

Electron microscopes use a particle beam of electrons to illuminate the specimen and have a greater resolving power than light-powered optical microscopes. This is because electrons have wavelengths shorter than visible light (photons) and as such attain a better resolution than optical microscopes (in the order of 0.3 as against 400 nanometres).
With wavelengths this short, we are allowed to move only in the outer shell of the atom; that’s a long way away from the nucleus, a looong way away. I think the message got home. The scientifically minded scholar knows already what I am driving at. Yes, my friends, why should Einstein be allowed to enter the nucleus with wavelengths much, much longer of those we see above. Don’t run to check them, here they are: the visible light falls in the region of 400-700 nanometres.
The speed of light inside the nucleus of an atom? How can the light’s wavelength enter the nucleus to prise open its core, to poke the neutrons, to split the protons? The speed of light in the atom’s “sancta sanctorum”? The thought of it is simply absurd, it’s preposterous. No man of science should nurse such an idea, not even for a moment.
There never was, of course, the speed of light in the nucleus. What the great man put in there, unaware as he was, it was what I have called “the electromagnetic process for the making of time and space” or, better still, the beginning of it, the early stage of the process whose inner structure covers the gamma rays range of frequencies. This is the weapon that Einstein put inside the nucleus, this is the weapon that can and will split hundreds of protons because it has the strength to do it. The sharp thickly compacted vibrations have very cutting edges and can prise open two protons very easily.
The great man knew about it, because in 1921 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the photoelectric effect. He knew then that photons from the blue end of the visible spectrum had enough energy (sharper vibration edges) to free electrons from a metal plate whereas photons from the red end of the spectrum weren’t energetic enough to do the job. He knew then that the shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy.
As for that c2 above, its strength is given to it by its speed. The wavelength in the visible spectrum is much too long and its energy is harmless. A little girl playing with a household mirror can do what she wants with a ray of light. The strength generated by the speed comes from the electromagnetic process of expansion in time (stationary world), as I have clearly shown with the Pythagorean triangle in my thread “on the nature of time and space”. The speed of light, like any other radiation, runs orthogonal to the process and obviously retains the same speed of the process whose decreasing energy is progressively bonded for the physical creation of each and every wavelength. This is where the mighty strength lies because this is the expanding and/or extending field or, if you prefer to see it the other way around, the mighty gravitational field.
Given the above facts, it seems to be clear that the equation under scrutiny will have to be adjusted. The most suitable candidate for it would be the first axiom of the theory herein expounded which reads: <<time and space are physically created by an electromagnetic process in expansion and/or extension to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum>>. The physical properties of this spectrum are well known. What is not known is that its gradation scale is embedded in space and responds, as clearly shown in my thread “the dual nature of space” to the orthogonal properties of the speed of light. Nevertheless, if there is a similar or better candidate for the job, I shall be the first to acclaim the new comer. Meanwhile let me recast the old equation and introduce a possible solution of it. Here it is:

E = m C2

where C2 is the electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space and, I may add, the most suitable candidate that I know of. Here I would like to think aloud and pass some useful comments. (1) the equation works, the many successful atomic fission blasts can testify to that, (2) it is the speed of that c2 and not the energy that translates itself into strength, (3) the speed translates itself into strength because it is radial (it must, since it is inside the nucleus) and not linear as intended by Relativity, (4) I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the speed and not the energy generates the power of the all-important parameter c2, (5) I have indirectly proven that there exists in nature a mighty strength able and capable of bursting the nucleus and split protons at will, (6) I have labelled this “mighty strength” the electromagnetic process for the expansion of time and/or the extension of space, and given to it the notation C2.
In presenting my proposition, I might have at times sounded too dogmatic; it was not intended to be, I must apologize for it. It is, unfortunately, just my writing style. To round off for the closing, I would now like to point out that by accepting the physical existence of the electromagnetic process, Science will have found (i) the energy required for the expansion of the universe, (ii) the negative energy missing to satisfy the cosmological equilibrium, (iii) the scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, (iv) the raison d’être itself, and (v) the missing roots of “being and becoming” because the process is an ongoing process from time immemorial.

#2 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1532 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 08:41 AM

Hi Domenico,

I would now like to point out that by accepting the physical existence of the electromagnetic process, Science will have found (i) the energy required for the expansion of the universe, (ii) the negative energy missing to satisfy the cosmological equilibrium, (iii) the scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, (iv) the raison d’être itself, and (v) the missing roots of “being and becoming” because the process is an ongoing process from time immemorial.


If you plan to cross a wide ocean with many obstacles
don't run into any of those obstacles
and base your map on the ocean not the obstacles themselves
otherwise you will just face obstacles and never get anywhere.

#3 The Polymath

The Polymath

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 09:27 AM

Were you ever a scientific nonfiction writer? It seems like you would make a good one.

#4 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1532 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 10:10 AM

Hi polymath,

Were you ever a scientific nonfiction writer? It seems like you would make a good one.


I don't think so, I read an article once written by one of those guys who said that Steven Wolframs work on finite state cellular automata was just like magic.

Obviously anybody who had even an elementary grasp of discrete maths would know that it wasn't magic and would really wonder why that writer didn't understanding how simple things like 7 segment displays (or automatic share trading systems) work.

Are you a scientific nonfiction writer polymath, because you seem to do the same thing?

#5 Guest_Domenico_*

Guest_Domenico_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2011 - 10:22 AM

Hi Domenico,



If you plan to cross a wide ocean with many obstacles
don't run into any of those obstacles
and base your map on the ocean not the obstacles themselves
otherwise you will just face obstacles and never get anywhere.

Hello there,
It's very difficult to see the road when every body's atom is excited and every atom's electron is jumping up and down like mad. I'll try to make treasure of your advise.

#6 The Polymath

The Polymath

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 01:48 PM

The speed of light inside the nucleus of an atom? How can the light’s wavelength enter the nucleus to prise open its core, to poke the neutrons, to split the protons?

It doesn't need to.

The speed of light in the atom’s “sancta sanctorum”? The thought of it is simply absurd, it’s preposterous.There never was, of course, the speed of light in the nucleus.

No. The speed of light, even when it is used in nuclear calulations, refers to the speed of light in a vacuum under ideal conditions. It doesn't need to be in the atom to be used in a calulation.

He knew then that the shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy.

Yes. That was known before Einstein got a Nobel Prize.

As for that c2 above, its strength is given to it by its speed.

No, its value comes fom the speed of light. It is just a number.

The wavelength in the visible spectrum is much too long and its energy is harmless.

For every wavelength, the energy put in will be the energy you get out. If I turn x units of electrical energy into y units of electromagnetic energy, then turn it into z units of thermal energy, then (barring ineffiecncies) it woudld be the same as if I had turned the x units of electrical energy into the z units of thermal energy directly. This is true for all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Energy in always equals energy out, bar energy to mass conversion (something we are unable to do) and vice-versa.

Here it is:

E = m C2

where C2 is the electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space

What is its value?

and, I may add, the most suitable candidate that I know of. Here I would like to think aloud and pass some useful comments. (1) the equation works, the many successful atomic fission blasts can testify to that,

If it is a new equation (a 'new-comer' as you said in your post), then how has it been proven?
  • CraigD likes this

#7 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 03:18 PM

Here it is:

E = m C2

where C2 is the electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space ...

I’ll echo, and then, I think, answer Polymath’s question:

What is its [C’s] value?

We know from the definition of energy that it has units of [imath]\mbox{mass} \cdot \mbox{length}^2 / \mbox{time}^2[/imath]. We know, then that if m has units of mass, C must have units of [imath]\mbox{length} / \mbox{time}[/imath] – that is, it must be a speed.

We know experimentally that that speed must be around 299792458 m/s – a value we conventionally call the speed of light, and represent with the symbol c.

We conclude, therefore, that C = c.

Domenico, the whole of your claim that the famous [imath]E = m c^2[/imath] equation was “not formulated in accordance to its physical meaning” because of an “offender”, “the incongruent c2”, appears to me to be that the units of the constant c or C should be an “electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space” rather than a speed. Via my explanation above, I think I’ve shown that, unless this “electromagnetic process” to which you refer is a value with units of speed – in other words, is a speed – your claim is wrong, and if it is a speed, your claim is unnecessary.

In either case, I think it meets hypography's definition of "silly".

#8 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 04:51 PM

We know experimentally that that speed must be around 299792458 m/s

No, we know that it is exactly 1 and not experimentally but by definition.

1 what?

No, just 1, it's an adimensional quantity. Heck an astronomer might say yeah, it's 1 lightyear every year, which is better than most of those dumb folks who insist on using such wildly different units of length, according to whether it's for a spacelike or a timelike length. A kilometre is such a tiny length in comparison to a whopping long second (almost 300 thousand times longer!). They say the Concorde is fast? No! It's a damn slow 0.000002001 at its Maximum Operating Cruise Speed.

Guagliò, 'scolta, speed is just the tangent of the angle a body's worldline forms with the time axis. If natural units are chosen (i. e. the same for timelike and spacelike directions) then that angle can at the most approach [imath]\frac{\pi}{4}[/imath] which is a speed of 1, also called [imath]c[/imath], capito? The speed of something massless can't be other than exactly [imath]c[/imath].

#9 The Polymath

The Polymath

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 06:54 PM

Wait, so you are claiming that units of speed(d) are the same as units of time (t)?

That would mean that:

d / t = t
d = 1

Now, we know that d can equal more than one unit (i.e. five meters or twelve inches). So how do you get the speed of a Concord (d/t) to compare to a unit of time? It's apples to oranges.

#10 Guest_Domenico_*

Guest_Domenico_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2011 - 07:11 PM

I’ll echo, and then, I think, answer Polymath’s question:

We know from the definition of energy that it has units of [imath]\mbox{mass} \cdot \mbox{length}^2 / \mbox{time}^2[/imath]. We know, then that if m has units of mass, C must have units of [imath]\mbox{length} / \mbox{time}[/imath] – that is, it must be a speed.

We know experimentally that that speed must be around 299792458 m/s – a value we conventionally call the speed of light, and represent with the symbol c.

We conclude, therefore, that C = c.

Hello CraigD,

I learned all of it in the early fifties, I don’t think you were born yet. However, I must thank you for reminding me, that was nice of you.

Domenico, the whole of your claim that the famous [imath]E = m c^2[/imath] equation was “not formulated in accordance to its physical meaning” because of an “offender”, “the incongruent c2”, appears to me to be that the units of the constant c or C should be an “electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space” rather than a speed. Via my explanation above, I think I’ve shown that, unless this “electromagnetic process” to which you refer is a value with units of speed – in other words, is a speed – your claim is wrong, and if it is a speed, your claim is unnecessary.

In either case, I think it meets hypography's definition of "silly".

In my thread I say these very words: <<The speed of light, like any other radiation, runs orthogonal to the process and obviously retains the same speed of the process whose decreasing energy is progressively bonded for the physical creation of each and every wavelength>>. Further, I made two references to previous threads, namely: «On the nature of time and space» and «The dual nature of space». You didn’t read either the line and a half sitting half way of the present thread or all or part of the above mentioned previous threads, it was your prerogative to do so. I don’t know whether the point that I was trying to make was missed or purposely ignored, it is of no importance now.
It is not important because I am not here to argue the content of my work or the administration decision to relegate the thread in the “silly claims” forum. I know that I have no right to discuss Admin’s decisions and I also know that my thread is endorsed by the Dean of a physics faculty and that it has been the subject matter of an academic discussion at university level. The reason I am here, CraigD, is that I wanted to contact an administration officer and when I saw your name I mentally blessed you and your “coat of arms”.
To CraigD
Admin Officer of the <<The Science Forums>> (Science for Everyone),
Your decision to relegate my thread «The most famous equation of them all» in the “Silly Claims” forum, has hurt me like no other thing has ever done during my long and successful life. I accept your decision and I do not argue with it. However, in order to retain my dignity as a person and my professional honour as an academic, I am compelled to ask you, and ask you kindly, to remove altogether, that is, to delete all my threads (12 in all) which I have posted in the two forums where I have been active, namely: “Philosophy of Science” and “Alternative theories” forums, including obviously the thread which is now in the “Silly Claims” forum.
No recriminations, only cordiality and if one day I’ll meet you or any of the Admin guys, I shall be pleased to offer a cup of coffee and a courteous good by.
My regards.
Domenico Idato

Note. If you do not or can not handle the above, would you please pass it to the appropriate Admin officer. Thank you.
Cheers for now
Domenico Idato

#11 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 08:12 PM

No, we know that it is exactly 1 and not experimentally but by definition.

1 what?

No, just 1, it's an adimensional quantity.

Now that’s a rarity, Qfwfq! – you’ve erred, and I must correct you! Usually I do the erring, and you the correcting. :)

A dimensional physical constant can’t be made dimensionless, nor a dimensionless one made dimensional, by choice of units.

For example, in Planck units, c = 1 lp/tp. It’s not a dimensionless (AKA unitless) quantity – the Planck length, lp, and Planck time, tp are as much a units of length and time as are the meter and the second. They’re just arrived at via a process requiring an awareness of modern physics, while the meter and second have their historic origins in older scientific and pre-scientific disciplines (a meter is about the distance a human being travels in one stride, a second about the duration of one beat of a human heart).

A dimensionless quantity is one where the units of the quantities that calculate it calculate to 1. For example, the ratio of the long and short side of a isosceles right triangle is [imath]\sqrt{2} = 1.4142136 \dots[/imath], regardless of whether the sides of the triangle are measured in Planck lengths, meters, inches, cubits, or what have you. Another example, the fine structure constant is a slightly more complicated dimensionless constant, because more than 1 kind of units are used to calculate it.

All of this aside, the [imath]x[/imath] in the original post’s famous [imath]E = m x^2[/imath] must still be in units of length/time, that is, speed.

#12 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 02:38 PM

Now that’s a rarity, Qfwfq! – you’ve erred, and I must correct you!

If that is correct, the Devil made me do it, in the form of many reputed textbooks of theoretical physics. They often err even more than that, by defining natural units as being such that not only [imath]c=1[/imath] but also [imath]\hbar=1[/imath] too.

Indeed, due to the consequence that the most famous equation of them all becomes [imath]E=m[/imath], these errant textbooks regard the word mass as a term for a body's rest energy because that's exactly what it is in their errant opinion. Of course energy and momentum become homogenous quantities too, in line with being components of a same 4-vector. This is just like the 4-vectors of spacetime geometry itself; the idea is that although they have very different properties and we perceive them very differently, spacelike and timelike intervals are just diffferent directions. It is so neat conceptually that these textbooks find it absolutely compelling and that's what tricks them into believing it.

BTW the current SI definitions have the metre defined according to the second and such that, for common mortals who prefer everyday scales of quantity, [imath]c[/imath] expressed in m/s is exactly 299792458 by definition. The only experimental determiniations are of how long exactly 1 metre is, and the exact duration of a second which, by the current definition, is exactly given by a caesium clock.
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/base_units/
We can't do without having both determinations because we can't make a clock run along the [imath]x[/imath] axis, nor turn a ruler along the [imath]t[/imath] axis; I have doubts about how these objects would survive crossing a Schwarzschild radius too and we'd have a hard time getting them back anyways (pity, cuz according to the math it would provide the service quite automatically), so we just resign to having both definitions as if they were separate base units. Engineers find it handy, anyway.

#13 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 04:37 PM

To CraigD
Admin Officer of the <<The Science Forums>> (Science for Everyone),
Your decision to relegate my thread «The most famous equation of them all» in the “Silly Claims” forum, has hurt me like no other thing has ever done during my long and successful life.

My apologies, Domenico. Hypography is intended as a forum for pleasant discussion of science by peoples of all ages and educational levels and backgrounds. Hurting your or others' feelings isn’t consistent with this mission. I’m sorry.

However, part of that mission requires that our moderators and administrators place threads in appropriate forums, so that members and guests are not confused by the mixing of well-supported science from ideas such as those you present in this thread. At one time, hypogaphy has a single forum for such threads – “strange claims” – but over years, we discovered that two others – “silly claims” and “alternative theories” – were needed. “Strange claims” became a place for such claims as alien abductions, “silly claims” for claims such as [imath]E=m x^2, \, x\not=c[/imath], and alternative theories for unconventional ideas developed in a sufficiently rigorous manner that they are, in a Popperian sense, theories, making or with the potential to make falsifiable hypotheses.

I’ve moved this thread to “alternative theories”. For it to remain here, however, you or other proponents of your claims must present information to make them sensible – un-silly – in the judgment of our mods and admins, to our members and guests.

I suggest you begin by explaining – “arguing the content of your work” – your claim that the mass-energy equivalence is given by
[math]E=m x^2[/math]
where [imath]x[/imath] is not its usual quantity, the speed of light, but some other quantity you called an “electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space”. As required by our site rules, please provide links or references to peer reviewed publications of yours or others explaining your claim.

I frankly can’t see how such an explanation can possibly be made in a sensible scientific way. Energy is, by definition, a quantity of explicit units, so any expression of it must agree exactly on the kind of these units (length, mass, and time). How can an “electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space”, as you mean it here, be anything other than a quantity of speed?

#14 Guest_Domenico_*

Guest_Domenico_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2011 - 06:46 AM

My apologies, Domenico. Hypography is intended as a forum for pleasant discussion of science by peoples of all ages and educational levels and backgrounds. Hurting your or others' feelings isn’t consistent with this mission. I’m sorry.

However, part of that mission requires that our moderators and administrators place threads in appropriate forums, so that members and guests are not confused by the mixing of well-supported science from ideas such as those you present in this thread. At one time, hypogaphy has a single forum for such threads – “strange claims” – but over years, we discovered that two others – “silly claims” and “alternative theories” – were needed. “Strange claims” became a place for such claims as alien abductions, “silly claims” for claims such as [imath]E=m x^2, \, x\not=c[/imath], and alternative theories for unconventional ideas developed in a sufficiently rigorous manner that they are, in a Popperian sense, theories, making or with the potential to make falsifiable hypotheses.

Hello CraigD,
Thank you. You have been very nice and professionally sound in giving war and now you are very nice and professionally sound in making peace. People like you are the prime mover and only hope for the “morrow” of the human race. I must on my side give you credit for not being able to follow the paper. I am not seeking any sympathy, but it is very difficult to present a small part of a new theory without giving every time the basis on which the theory rests. I have to think of the unwritten regulations of the forum to try to be brief, I have to think of the readers who prefer and enjoy short topics, and I have to condense a long and new subject into a short topic. Not an easy task, I have to try harder.
Ending up in the silly claims was in itself an annoying thought, but what really disturbed me was the intromission of your friend and colleague. He bursted into the scene, most likely without reading my thread, and addressing me with a two-line message the first two words of which were: “Guagliò, ‘scolta,” (the second word has the wrong spelling). These two words belong to the Neapolitan dialect and their meaning in English is: “listen boy”. To complete the job, halfway through the two lines, and after telling me how good he was using in the process Minkowski’s professorial words, he says “capito” followed by an interrogation mark. Let me translate again literally as I did before: “understood?”. Not did you understand or have you understood. No, oh no. Just the bare word, the nude and crude “understood?” in the same way that a nurse might address a demented fellow sitting on a wheel chair. Incredible. A man I never saw or heard in my life calls me “little boy” and speaks down to me in a way that would have upset even a four-year old. Where did they find him, he cannot do what is doing. He is supposed to help members and guests enjoy the forum, he is supposed to administer and moderate not to attack.
CraigD, a few days ago (20 February) I was 79, I have a university degree in electronic engineering, and a university degree in physics, as a young man I was a radio officer on passengers ships enjoying the girls, I have been consular interpreter and I have been university lecturer; I wrote 18 books including an Italian dictionary at present selling like hot cakes. I do hope I don’t have to suffer your colleague’s interference in my life again.

I’ve moved this thread to “alternative theories”. For it to remain here, however, you or other proponents of your claims must present information to make them sensible – un-silly – in the judgment of our mods and admins, to our members and guests.

I suggest you begin by explaining – “arguing the content of your work” – your claim that the mass-energy equivalence is given by
[math]E=m x^2[/math]
where [imath]x[/imath] is not its usual quantity, the speed of light, but some other quantity you called an “electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space”. As required by our site rules, please provide links or references to peer reviewed publications of yours or others explaining your claim.

I frankly can’t see how such an explanation can possibly be made in a sensible scientific way. Energy is, by definition, a quantity of explicit units, so any expression of it must agree exactly on the kind of these units (length, mass, and time). How can an “electromagnetic process expanding in time and extending in space”, as you mean it here, be anything other than a quantity of speed?

To science now. My face is already relaxed and giving the shade of a smile. To answer some of your hints. The c2 of the “old girl” has the same physical properties of the C2 (capital letter) that I have suggested. I have attached two diagrams because I want to make sure I’ll come across.
On to the next paragraph. Obviously the mass-energy equivalence is given by E=mC2. To be correct, and in line with my theory, I would have said the “mass-energy similitude” In the philosophy of science forum I have a thread called “the principle of similitude” where I explain what I just stated.
This is what the WordReference.com English dictionary has to say on the subject matter:
Equivalence - the condition of being equal or equivalent in value, function etc.
Similitude
1) the quality or state of being similar
2) a comparison between two things
3) a person or thing resembling another
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Merriam-Webster dictionary
equivalence
1) the state or property of being equivalent
2) a presentation of terms as equivalent
3) Equality in metrical value of a regular foot and one in which there are substitutions
Similitude
1) counterpart, double - a visible likeness: image
2) an imaginative comparison: simile
3) correspondence in kind or quality - a point of comparison
---------------------------------------------------------
Equivalence - (from my Italian dictionary)
the state or fact of being equivalent; equality in value, force, significance, etc.
in chemistry - the quality of having equal valence
in logic - the relation between two propositions such that each logically implies the other.
Similitude - (from my Italian dictionary)
likeness, similarity, resemblance
a thing or a person that is like or the match (or the counterpart) of another
a likening or comparison in the form of a simile, parable, or allegory

Given the relationship energy-mass and notwithstanding the almighty father of Relativity, the word similitude is much more appropriate than equivalence. This is very much so in my theory where energy and mass are properly defined. The two things are not equivalent, they are similar. The equal sign in maths is sacrosanct and you know that better than I.
Two little notes attached to it: (i) I am an accomplished lexicographer and as such I like to call a spade a spade, and (ii) Science has no proper definition for mass; sorry about it.

To respond to the last two paragraph, here, CraigD, are two diagrams with a few words to complement the figures.

With figure 1 I am representing the electromagnetic spectrum. We have the vertex of the cone where a 1-metre wavelength houses a frequency of 300 million cycles per second (a lot of energy), and we have the directrix of the cone where the wavelength is now 300 million metres long and the frequency has come down to 1 cycle per second (the energy level is almost negligible). This would mean that the energy present at the origin (vertex) was spent in some way during the electromagnetic process for the creation of time lengths and for the creation of space lengths. The obvious question here should be: where would have the energy gone otherwise?

Posted Image

Now, think fast, please. If Time and Space are made by a process and are a product of nature, they have to be made in small ascending bits (there is no other choice). Their unit measure would therefore be very tiny at the beginning (origin) and it would reach the full length (expansion in time and extension in space) at the end (1 second = 300 million metres), hence a gradation scale such as the shown spectrum to satisfy our two main requirements:
(1) the building up of the unit measure of time and space along the ascending scale; that is, the wavelength, and
(2) the required energy decrease along the ascending scale, energy needed for the build-up of the wavelength.

Posted Image

What we are seeing in figure 2 is applicable to a single atom, to free (optical) space or, if you want to, we may extend the physical concept to the entire universe. This we can do keeping in mind that free (optical) space is an expanding substance composed of infinitely many small pointlike electromagnetic point-sources of self-generating energy each having its own unsaturated sink with continuous absorption because of the constant and continuous expansion and/or extension (the wavelength proper of the process for the creation of time and/or space) . These point-sources must be considered inertial frames moving at the speed of light and consequently their slope is 1/c, or 3.335x10−11 centimetres per second. In addition to it, by extrapolation to cosmological size, we may think of an entire cluster of galaxies containing infinitely many electromagnetic point-sources and retaining the same dynamics of a single point-source.
Following this line of thought and thinking for a moment of the universe as a sphere, we have before our very eyes the two faces of the one and only identical reality; we have first a non-linear electromagnetic field which science calls gravitational field or, to take it the other way around, the field where the electromagnetic process for the creation of time and space is operative, when we move in the sense of the expansion and/or extension, that is: from the centre of the sphere towards the outer edge; and then we have a linear electromagnetic field that science calls radiative field when we move transverse to the expansion and/or extension and along any given wavelength, that is: forming a circle starting from any point along an imaginary radius vector to indicate the type of electromagnetic radiation we have chosen.
Just pointing out that my proposition finds strong support in the empirical evidence of:
(1) radiating energy in the gravitational field (non-linear field) where the energy itself is variable even though the speed remains constant throughout the energy steps, and
(2) radiating energy in the so-called electromagnetic field (linear field) where the energy as well as the speed are constant.
Too many cuts, not enough and confusing, I know. I would like you to grasp the idea of process, though. First, the finite and constant expansion of the universe causes one and all infinitely small pointlike point-sources to magnetize. These magnetized point-sources will instantly generate, according to Faraday, an electric field which in turn generates a magnetic field and so on. The created electromagnetic field is quantized at each and every pointlike point-source where the distance in-between point-sources is Planck’s distance. Each point-source marks the origin and it is a harmonic oscillator to be mentally placed at the very short-wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum (vertex).
I cannot go longer than this. Just 3 things. (1) The theory is internally consistent and there isn’t a comma out of place. You may reject it because it is against the grain, and I can well understand that, but it makes logical sense and mathematical sense throughout. (2) I don’t know if you have time to do it, but if you accept that time and space are physically made by nature you can explain what science today cannot explain. If there is some scientific issue nagging you, try with time and space as part of nature and you’ll see what I mean. (3) If you have time, read my thread <the dual nature of space> please; and while you’re there look at the sphere and try to imagine how the process might be in my mind. If you can do that, you have physically resolved the nonlocality problem.
My answer is much too long and unfair, that means you can have the last word and plenty of lines to your credit.

#15 jhmar

jhmar

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 27 February 2011 - 06:59 AM

It seems to me that Fig.1 demonstrates the equation put forward elsewhere and rejected by the resident expert as "not science" i.e. mr = g/2 (originally mr = constant); read Fig. 1 from right to left and give each wave its force carrier to see how the universe is constructed.

#16 Guest_Domenico_*

Guest_Domenico_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2011 - 07:16 AM

It seems to me that Fig.1 demonstrates the equation put forward elsewhere and rejected by the resident expert as "not science" i.e. mr = g/2 (originally mr = constant); read Fig. 1 from right to left and give each wave its force carrier to see how the universe is constructed.

OK jhmar, I'll check on that and give you an answer. cheers for now

#17 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 27 February 2011 - 11:38 AM

Sorry Domenico, I meant no offence.

We aren't in the habit of being very formal here and I've always heard adult guys from several southern regions calling each other guagliò in a friendly manner, even in address to a cool guy who's tough and knows his stuff, like. Of course I wouldn't have used it if I was addressing you as Lei and Sig. Idato, but I've always regarded it as a friendly chum kind of a thing that has spread around a bit up here too. Despite several old acquaintances, there's nothing specifically Calabrian I could think of.

The c2 of the “old girl” has the same physical properties of the C2 (capital letter) that I have suggested. I have attached two diagrams because I want to make sure I’ll come across.
On to the next paragraph. Obviously the mass-energy equivalence is given by E=mC2. To be correct, and in line with my theory, I would have said the “mass-energy similitude” In the philosophy of science forum I have a thread called “the principle of similitude” where I explain what I just stated.

I adhere to the school of thought where mass is just one kind of energy, called rest energy. To better clarify, I do not use the archaic notion of "relativistic mass" which has caused so much confusion since 1905.

Now let's get to the dispute: the relation of [imath]C[/imath] with [imath]c[/imath]. If we compare:

[math]E=mc^2[/math] and [math]E=mC^2[/math]

we can divide by the scalar [imath]m[/imath] in both cases. If [imath]E[/imath] and [imath]m[/imath] are the same in both cases, then by the transitive property of equality we can say that the two squared factors equal each other:

[math]c^2=\frac{E}{m}=C^2[/math]

If both [imath]C[/imath] and [imath]c[/imath] are numbers they can differ at the most by sign. Now [imath]c[/imath] is the usual familiar one so, either your [imath]C[/imath] is [imath]-c[/imath] or else it must be something for which some kind of square is defined: a norm squared for instance or a scalar product of [imath]C[/imath] with itself, perhaps even the self contraction of a tensor...

So, is your drift anything of the above type? In any case, does it have any relation to VSL and PV?