What is MT?

[michel123456]

Here is a little representation including basic instances : Mass, Velocity and Time.

 

 

Mass is the vertical axis.

Time is horizontal (front)

Velocity is horizontal (back)

Distance is the product of Time with Velocity, i.e. the grey surface.

The yellow surface is Momentum.

The entire cube has units of mass times distance (kg m), something like torque (or work).

What is the last surface standing for (the one with the red diagonals)? its value is Mass times Time. What is MT?

??Something like a "momentum in time"??(the power residing in an object moving through time?)

[swansont]

Why does it have to mean something?

[michel123456]

So it does not mean anything to you.

[mooeypoo]

I think the question was more to the sense of "where did this image come from"? IE- what context is this "MT" important? maybe the context will reveal the meaning.

[ajb]

In the context of classical mechanics it does not ring any bells with me. It may not come naturally from Newton's laws or anything similar.

[insane_alien]

it doesn't have any named definition according to wolfram alpha and i can't find references to it. it probably just isn't a useful value.

[michel123456]

I think the question was more to the sense of "where did this image come from"? IE- what context is this "MT" important? maybe the context will reveal the meaning.

 

The context is the following.

All masses are "traveling" through time (or time "flows" upon masses).

The rest of the context is deap in Michel's brain.

[swansont]

Nobody has, as yet, matched that up with a physically meaningful/useful quantity.

[mooeypoo]

The context is the following.

All masses are "traveling" through time (or time "flows" upon masses).

The rest of the context is deap in Michel's brain.

 

So...... you invented something that makes no sense and you're asking us to make sense of it?

[Sisyphus]

Why mass, time, and velocity?

 

Actually, let me suggest you have a look at dimensional analysis, which basically means breaking down quantities into their more fundamental components. So momentum is mv, but v is itself distance per time, so momentum would be mL/t, etc.

 

The fundamental dimensions would be mass, time, distance, temperature, and charge. And of course there can be any exponent for any of these - acceleration is distance per time squared, for example.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, it would be one of the walls on the cube, which otherwise has useful things on it I suppose.

 

Don't energy (aka mass) and time have a relationship in QM similar to momentum and distance? I don't know much about it though.

[swansont]

Well, it would be one of the walls on the cube, which otherwise has useful things on it I suppose.

 

But they are chosen somewhat arbitrarily. Why velocity and not position?

[michel123456]

Actually, I was not confident at all that I "invented" anything. I was almost sure that MT existed and that Mr Skeptic's response would be a fulgurant offense to my ignorance. Usually I have an inclination in discovering centuries old "inventions". So I was really surprised that no one knew anything about it.

 

Because it has been suggested that MT makes no sense, I have to say this:

 

The first idea came from the problematic of increasing relativistic mass at near to SOL speed. So I played for a while with 2D diagrams with Speed on the abscissa & Mass on the ordinate, making curves of increasing mass. The yellow plane of the cube.

At some other time of my chaotic investigations, I had a thought about the unit of distance (1 meter), which is not defined by itself, but defined through C, which is a Speed. So I went on making 2D diagrams with Speed on one axis, and Time on the other, obtaining a strange surface which represents...Distance. The grey surface of the cube. Really peculiar, how is it possible to represent a 1D instance through a 2D surface? Is it a simple geometrical trick, or something else?

 

And one day it came to my mind to put both diagrams together, making a 3D cube. I was really happy when I saw Momentum appear. In fact I had to see Momentum appearing from my first diagrams, but I didn't remark anything of it because I was thinking something completely different.

The entire cube has familiar units (MTV no kidding, or MD= kg m) although I have not figured what it really means.

The strange part was MT. I went googling, and found nothing.

 

At this point, I made a thought that MT should be something similar to Momentum.

Momentum can be defined as "the power residing in an object moving through space"

MT could be defined as "the power residing in an object moving through time". And indeed, all massive objects "move" through Time. So I made the thought that MT could mean something.

Is this speculation?

[Sisyphus]

Momentum is mass*velocity. But velocity is itself distance/time. It is "moving through time." The word "moving" implies time, in fact.

 

With momentum, it increases in direct proportion to either mass or velocity. What increases in direct proportion to mass and time? As in, a 10 kg mass for 10 seconds is equal in what to a 5kg mass for 20 seconds. Well, it's equal in MT, or kilogram-seconds, or whatever. It doesn't have another name. That doesn't make it mysterious or unknown, just not useful enough a concept to have a special word for it in English. (It's definitely not "power," which means something specific: work per unit time.)

[michel123456]

Velocity is moving through time. Agree. But standing still is moving through time too.

 

I personnaly call that "toving"*, to differentiate from "moving".

 

*my own little vocabulary, not registered.

[smoore]

so your implying something not moving but still in time would have a untapped energy I think that would be gravity the only thing I can say to that is mabey you have to keep in mind that everything we know of is moving because all particles move and all electrons move around the nuecleus(correct spelling?) of an atom

 

nice weird theory although im somewhat lost what I'm getting out of it is that everything must have a potential energy that is based not just on mass or speed but on the fact that it is in time unfortunatly we cannot test that without a time machine

 

wow did I just say all that out of shear stupidity or dose that make sense to anyone else

[mooeypoo]

Movement is relative. Something is only stationary in the same inertial frame.

 

That is, I am sitting in my chair in front of my computer, and am stationary in my own frame, but another observer in a different inertial frame will consider me moving.

[CaptainPanic]

If you have 3 apples, and 4 oranges...

And you multiply that: then you get 12 apple*oranges...

 

... which makes absolutely no sense from a physical point of view - in the end you still have only 7 pieces of fruit - but it might come in handy in some calculations.

[Sisyphus]

If you have 3 apples, and 4 oranges...

And you multiply that: then you get 12 apple*oranges...

 

... which makes absolutely no sense from a physical point of view - in the end you still have only 7 pieces of fruit - but it might come in handy in some calculations.

 

i.e., 2 apples an 6 oranges is equal in what to 3 apples and 4 oranges, or to 1 apple and 12 oranges, or to 1/100th of an apple and 1200 oranges? There might be situations where that has some physical meaning, but not enough that it needs a word besides apples*oranges.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Sisyphus

[swansont]

The original construct is artificial, as I pointed out earlier. If we choose position rather than velocity, we get distance*time for one face, which has no meaning. Instead, velocity was chosen, which is the time derivative of position, so vt has meaning, if v is a constant. But we could have chosen an axis to be [math]\frac{dm}{dt}[/math], in which case the cube face would give us mass (if the derivative were a constant). But then [math]v\frac{dm}{dt}[/math] or [math]x\frac{dm}{dt}[/math] is meaningless.

 

You can't just throw two units together an expect that they mean something.

[michel123456]

so your implying something not moving but still in time would have a untapped energy I think that would be gravity the only thing I can say to that is mabey you have to keep in mind that everything we know of is moving because all particles move and all electrons move around the nuecleus(correct spelling?) of an atom

 

nice weird theory although im somewhat lost what I'm getting out of it is that everything must have a potential energy that is based not just on mass or speed but on the fact that it is in time unfortunatly we cannot test that without a time machine

 

wow did I just say all that out of shear stupidity or dose that make sense to anyone else

 

"I think that would be gravity" ...Thanks.

 

You can't just throw two units together an expect that they mean something.

The multiplication of bananas & umbrellas

http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/The%20multiplication%20of%20bananas%20by%20umbrellas.pdf

[ydoaPs]

But we could have chosen an axis to be [math]\frac{dm}{dt}[/math], in which case the cube face would give us mass (if the derivative were a constant). But then [math]v\frac{dm}{dt}[/math] or [math]x\frac{dm}{dt}[/math] is meaningless.

 

You can't just throw two units together an expect that they mean something.

 

Awfully close to force and momentum, though.

[michel123456]

If the entire cube is meaningfull, and if 2 sides of the cube have a meaning (namely Distance & Momentum) then the third side must mean something too. IMO.

[ydoaPs]

If the entire cube is meaningfull, and if 2 sides of the cube have a meaning (namely Distance & Momentum) then the third side must mean something too. IMO.

That's a great example of circular reasoning. Thank you.

[Mr Skeptic]

If the entire cube is meaningfull, and if 2 sides of the cube have a meaning (namely Distance & Momentum) then the third side must mean something too. IMO.

 

That extra if is redundant. If the entire cube is meaningful, of course all three sides are meaningful. Which of course says nothing new.