The Logical Universe E=MR

[michel123456]

(...) From now on, when my wife asks what I think about an outfit she put together to wear, I am not going to limit my comments to practical aspects regarding how the shoes don't match the purse. I am going to give her the straight story -- she needs to stop deluding herself about her fashion sense, and the best thing that will come of that outfit is that it will give others a good laugh.

(...)

That is suicide.

 

(...) And if your relationship with your wife is such that you cannot tell her when something doesn't match perhaps you should consider counselling.

(...)

Are you married?

 

I maintain: I dislike ophiolite's comment. It was rude and unnecessary. He should apologize instead of digging his own grave in the cemetery of my respect.

Hum. That did sound a little bit like Confucius...

Edited December 13, 2011 by michel123456

[Ophiolite]

Are you married?

Yes. For thirty four years.

 

I maintain: I dislike ophiolite's comment.

So you believe it is better to allow knowerastronomy to wallow in ignorance? You believe that is more humane? I am at a loss to understand why you should welcome ignorance in a fellow human. Since you seem to think this acceptable, even desirable I freely confess that I view the loss of your respect as a positive thing, much like being despised by Rush Limbaugh.

[michel123456]

Yes. For thirty four years.

 

 

So you believe it is better to allow knowerastronomy to wallow in ignorance?

Did I say that?

There are a number of ways you can say your opinion. I disagree on the way you have chosen.

 

You believe that is more humane? I am at a loss to understand why you should welcome ignorance in a fellow human. Since you seem to think this acceptable, even desirable I freely confess that I view the loss of your respect as a positive thing, much like being despised by Rush Limbaugh.

It's getting out of tracks.

Next time I'll vote negative.

[Klaynos]

OK people, I think we're a little off topic now. I think that should end.

[michel123456]

When i first saw the equation E=MR in the OP, i thought hmmm.

Then I say bof.

The R factor replaces C^2 from the famous E=MC^2.

 

Thus R is a constant.

R has unities m^2 by s^2.

 

These are square meters divided by square seconds. m^2/s^2

 

What is that?

 

Let"s make some unconventional try:

try A.

_Square meters divided by seconds is a unit representing how fast a painter makes his work : painting how many square meters of wall by seconds. But we must divide again this quantity by seconds, becoming: painting how many square meters of wall by seconds by seconds. And here I am lost. What is this? An accelerated painter? Why is it a constant? What the hell has a painter anything to do with E=MC^2?

So I abandon try A.

 

try B.

_Meters divided by seconds represents velocity. Meters divided by seconds by seconds is acceleration. That's great we are progressing.

We are missing some meters: what we need is acceleration times meters.(m/s^2) m = m^2/s^2

We can put that in graph: acceleration along X axis, meters along Y axis, and the whole surface of the diagram is R.

We got a surface which is a constant R=C^2

But then again, what is this surface?

 

One step back: until Meters divided by seconds by seconds is acceleration it was O.K..(m/s^2)

Because we know that an accelerated mass produces a force, it makes some sense compairing to the original E=MC^2 although missing something.

Then the question resumes to the last point, when we multiply this acceleration by meters.

The questions are: why multiply an acceleration by meters, and why the hell is it a constant?

 

That's what I expected from the OP with its E=MR

[knowerastronomy]

When i first saw the equation E=MR in the OP, i thought hmmm.

Then I say bof.

The R factor replaces C^2 from the famous E=MC^2.

 

Thus R is a constant.

R has unities m^2 by s^2.

 

These are square meters divided by square seconds. m^2/s^2

 

What is that?

 

Let"s make some unconventional try:

try A.

_Square meters divided by seconds is a unit representing how fast a painter makes his work : painting how many square meters of wall by seconds. But we must divide again this quantity by seconds, becoming: painting how many square meters of wall by seconds by seconds. And here I am lost. What is this? An accelerated painter? Why is it a constant? What the hell has a painter anything to do with E=MC^2?

So I abandon try A.

 

try B.

_Meters divided by seconds represents velocity. Meters divided by seconds by seconds is acceleration. That's great we are progressing.

We are missing some meters: what we need is acceleration times meters.(m/s^2) m = m^2/s^2

We can put that in graph: acceleration along X axis, meters along Y axis, and the whole surface of the diagram is R.

We got a surface which is a constant R=C^2

But then again, what is this surface?

 

One step back: until Meters divided by seconds by seconds is acceleration it was O.K..(m/s^2)

Because we know that an accelerated mass produces a force, it makes some sense compairing to the original E=MC^2 although missing something.

Then the question resumes to the last point, when we multiply this acceleration by meters.

The questions are: why multiply an acceleration by meters, and why the hell is it a constant?

 

That's what I expected from the OP with its E=MR

 

 

This is the Logical Universe and meant to explain things in a logical way. . .

 

This theory says that Energy is proportional to Matter times Rotational Speed. . . If the U1 Particles are bombarded with Energy their Rotational Speed increases. . . As the Rotational Speed of U1 Particles increases so does the Matter. . . Matter increases because more U1 Particles are added per area. . . Why you ask? Because they are influenced by the smaller faster rotating neighbors. . .

 

Logically this works and is an important part of the Logical Universe, but unfortunately I am not a mathematician so I would have to rely on someone else's expertise to put this in a mathematical perspective. . . I can see that you have the qualifications and are very skilled in this field. . . Perhaps if you can put aside why this cant work and think as to why it might be possible, I believe you could be one of the first people to really see the way the Universe fits together. . .

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

My criticisms still stand.

[Ophiolite]

My advice still stands.

[md65536]

Logically this works and is an important part of the Logical Universe, but unfortunately I am not a mathematician so I would have to rely on someone else's expertise to put this in a mathematical perspective. . . I can see that you have the qualifications and are very skilled in this field. . . Perhaps if you can put aside why this cant work and think as to why it might be possible, I believe you could be one of the first people to really see the way the Universe fits together. . .

I agree with the others.

 

Personally I think that if you want someone to do the math, you would have to start at the beginning. There should be some "first step" that goes from what you're trying to explain (observations, measurements, other models) and leads you to the first step in your explanation (your model). Then instead of "here's the final thing, can someone put some math in it?" it would become... uh... more like this:

 

"Here is my reasoning for why I think these observations can be explained by this device. Is it mathematically sound?"

You have obviously seen a reason why your model is a good explanation. Can you convey that to others? Otherwise I think it would be hard for a mathematician to know where to begin, or to even want to bother. However if (or, as) your reasoning is based on a lack of understanding of the existing physics, I think it would do more good to put effort into learning what already exists rather than trying to prove something new.

 

 

 

BUT there's another problem with this. If you invent a device such as "spinning particles that correspond to the energy of a system" and you can change their numbers or the energy imparted to their spin at will, then you can make the math work out easily! Eg. E=MR corresponds with SR if you make sure that R=C^2. But how do you know if that is true or not? How do you measure the count or the spin of your U1 particles? How do you even detect if they're there? Or, what predictions are made by assuming they're there, which can then be tested against predictions that are made by assuming they're not there?

[Klaynos]

I agree with the others.

 

Personally I think that if you want someone to do the math, you would have to start at the beginning. There should be some "first step" that goes from what you're trying to explain (observations, measurements, other models) and leads you to the first step in your explanation (your model). Then instead of "here's the final thing, can someone put some math in it?" it would become... uh... more like this:

 

"Here is my reasoning for why I think these observations can be explained by this device. Is it mathematically sound?"

You have obviously seen a reason why your model is a good explanation. Can you convey that to others? Otherwise I think it would be hard for a mathematician to know where to begin, or to even want to bother. However if (or, as) your reasoning is based on a lack of understanding of the existing physics, I think it would do more good to put effort into learning what already exists rather than trying to prove something new.

 

 

BUT there's another problem with this. If you invent a device such as "spinning particles that correspond to the energy of a system" and you can change their numbers or the energy imparted to their spin at will, then you can make the math work out easily! Eg. E=MR corresponds with SR if you make sure that R=C^2. But how do you know if that is true or not? How do you measure the count or the spin of your U1 particles? How do you even detect if they're there? Or, what predictions are made by assuming they're there, which can then be tested against predictions that are made by assuming they're not there?

 

He put maths in, it fails dimensional analysis, it is fundamentally flawed. He is stuck thinking that the universe should obey what he thinks is logical, the universe is under no such requirement. It don't care what you, I or anyone else thinks it just is.

[md65536]

He put maths in, it fails dimensional analysis, it is fundamentally flawed. He is stuck thinking that the universe should obey what he thinks is logical, the universe is under no such requirement. It don't care what you, I or anyone else thinks it just is.

 

You're right. I'm struggling to find a positive way forward with this. I think that "alternative science" can be valuable but that the work that would be required to turn crackpot science into real science would be some combination of long, tedious, arduous, maddening, disappointing, etc. Any advice I could give you, knowerastronomy, would be somewhat disingenuous, because I believe that any way forward with theories like this will require a lot of suffering. So I don't know what to say!; perhaps just be glad for the work that you've done and trust that you'll get proper credit for any way that it is useful.

 

Perhaps this article from 2006 offers some perspective, relating to the many who think that science must be wrong because it goes against common sense: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1162/was-einstein-a-fake

[michel123456]

This is the Logical Universe and meant to explain things in a logical way. . .

 

This theory says that Energy is proportional to Matter times Rotational Speed. . . If the U1 Particles are bombarded with Energy their Rotational Speed increases. . . As the Rotational Speed of U1 Particles increases so does the Matter. . . Matter increases because more U1 Particles are added per area. . . Why you ask? Because they are influenced by the smaller faster rotating neighbors. . .

 

Logically this works and is an important part of the Logical Universe, but unfortunately I am not a mathematician so I would have to rely on someone else's expertise to put this in a mathematical perspective. . . I can see that you have the qualifications and are very skilled in this field. . . Perhaps if you can put aside why this cant work and think as to why it might be possible, I believe you could be one of the first people to really see the way the Universe fits together. . .

Some other members are far more qualified than me, but thank you for the compliment.

 

Klaynos is right, you logical intuition fails dimensional analysis. You have to work on it. I strongly suggest to give priority there.

I suppose it is workable. There are other equations including energy, e=mc^2 is not the only one.

Maybe you'll find out that your rotational factor is in mass too. But anyway you can not progress by guessing only.

 

Put on the left units for energy, put on the right the correct units of what your logic tells you (a frequency?), and find what is missing. Why not? Methodology is not so important as long as you get a coherent result.

 

I hope you will not force an open door. That's what happen to me continuously...

[knowerastronomy]

I don't understand why E=mc2 works and E=MR don't.

 

Einstein's formula says that Energy is proportional to Matter times the speed of Light squared. . . This means when matter goes faster it has more energy, but it can't exceed the speed of Light. . . That's what all the all the physicists say. . . Also, the matter will have ultimate Gravity at the speed of light. . .

 

This makes no sense but with quantum mathematics it does. . . I say hold on something is wrong!

Edited December 20, 2011 by knowerastronomy

[Klaynos]

I don't understand why E=mc2 works and E=MR don't.

 

Let me start by saying that scientists, in this case Einstein, don't just pull equations out of the air. E=mc² is the result of a derivation from some very simple assumptions. This is derived many times on the internet, and copies of the original paper are also available, it is basically from electrodynamics being the same everywhere in the universe, so the speed of light being the same everywhere...

 

Now, let us apply the same dimensional analysis to E=mc² that I applied to your equation.

 

E, energy again, this is still:

 

mass * length²/time²

 

m, is mass, that's just mass,

 

c, is a speed, length/time, and in this case is squared so we get, length²/time²

 

Putting all of this together we get:

 

mass * length²/time² = mass * length²/time²

 

Notice how both sides of the equation match, it is not dimensionally flawed.

 

Einstein's formula says that Energy is proportional to Matter times the speed of Light squared. . .

 

Not quite, it says that a mass at rest multiplied by a constant squared (the speed of light squared) is equivalent to an energy.

 

This means when matter goes faster it has more energy,

 

No, this is known from the kinetic energy equation, classically this is also known as E=0.5*m*v²

 

Relativistically the total energy equation, of which E=mc² is a simplification for mass at rest is

 

E²=p²m²*m²c⁴

 

where m is the rest mass, c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and p is momentum.

 

but it can't exceed the speed of Light. . .

 

That is indeed a result of special relativity. No massive object can travel at the speed of light and it takes an increasing amount of energy to gain the same speed increase the closer you get relative to some original rest frame,

 

That's what all the all the physicists say. . .

 

With the corrections I've made.

 

Also, the matter will have ultimate Gravity at the speed of light. . .

 

No, mass cannot travel at the speed of light, there is no "but what if it can" because at that point you are ignoring the laws of physics and anything is fair game, but does NOT relate to how the universe works.

 

 

This makes no sense but with quantum mathematics it does. . . I say hold on something is wrong!

 

Can we keep the conversation to either special relativity or quantum mechanics for now? I don't mind which but it will muddy the water if we attempt quantum special relativity. Special relativity is well understood and has been for around 100 years. Whether it makes sense or not doesn't really matter, because as I've said before the universe doesn't care if it makes sense that's how it works. If special relativity (or general relativity) did not work in their regions then gps would not work.

[michel123456]

(...)

Not quite, it says that a mass at rest multiplied by a constant squared (the speed of light squared) is equivalent to an energy.

(...)

 

A constant squared is...a constant.

 

If one puts C^2=R he is not wrong. He is right.

 

The fact is we don't measure R anywhere, we measure C.

 

So we should conclude that we are measuring the square root of a constant. IOW that reality somehow has a trick, making us measure only the square root of "something else" with bizarre units meters^2 divided by seconds^2.

 

But I hear nobody asking: what is this?

[Klaynos]

A constant squared is...a constant.

 

If one puts C^2=R he is not wrong. He is right.

 

The fact is we don't measure R anywhere, we measure C.

 

So we should conclude that we are measuring the square root of a constant. IOW that reality somehow has a trick, making us measure only the square root of "something else" with bizarre units meters^2 divided by seconds^2.

 

But I hear nobody asking: what is this?

 

He sates above that R is rotational speed.

[michel123456]

He sates above that R is rotational speed.

 

He must be wrong on that.

Edited December 21, 2011 by michel123456

[JustinW]

So in laymens terms, Energy is equal to a mass at rest relative to the speed of light squared? Not mass going the speed of light squared, or that if mass could go the speed of light squared and it would turn into energy. I've had some confusion in other threads about this, but I believe this thread has givin me the ahha moment by explaining in a way that is more understandable to me. Let me know if the ahha is justified.

[knowerastronomy]

In the Logical Universe Theory

 

 

Energy is equal to matter (U1 Particle) times Rotational speed ( 360 degrees per?) ? is variable and could be Picosecond, Nanosecond or Second . . .

 

No Rotation No Energy. . .

 

The Mathematics involved is mind boggling because the U1 Particles are so small. . . I figure somewhere in the 10 to the -35 range. . .

 

It is possible to have matter without energy. . . Its called Cold Matter which is new to Science . . .

Edited December 21, 2011 by knowerastronomy

[Klaynos]

Please see my above posts. Still dimensionally unsound.

[knowerastronomy]

Please see my above posts. Still dimensionally unsound.

 

Ok fare enough. . .

 

In the current model of physics please explain the status of matter with more energy and then with less energy. . .

[md65536]

Please see my above posts. Still dimensionally unsound.

 

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to shoehorn the equation to be dimensionally sound?

Express mass M in terms of the U1 "unit masses", so that M becomes a dimensionless count of particles.

Then if all U1 are spherical and identical, wouldn't their kinetic energy be proportional to their rotation rate? Express R in terms of the kinetic energy of a single U1 particle.

Would this work?

 

E = (M/M_u) E_u R/R_u

Where M is mass,

M_u is the mass of a U1 particle,

R is rotational speed of the particles,

R_u is the unit rotational speed of a U1 particle?

 

E_u is the (kinetic?) energy of a U1 particle rotating at R_u

 

Then just combine the constants into one: U = E_u/(M_uR_u), with the right dimensions, and E=MRU

 

Though, I don't think this should be done, for the same reason that we shouldn't try to force any other idea to work, such as "all energy can be explained by the existence of tiny U1 rechargeable batteries that no one can ever detect." I suppose since energy is convertible, it can be converted and stored in rotating particles, or tiny batteries, or in the body heat of tiny U1 gnomes, etc... Without evidence to suggest that one of these exists while another doesn't, why assume that it does?

 

The Mathematics involved is mind boggling because the U1 Particles are so small. . . I figure somewhere in the 10 to the -35 range. . .

 

Have you considered instead of tiny rotating particles, that maybe the U1s are perhaps vibrating strings? That might be a strategy toward getting your theory to say anything you want.

[Klaynos]

If you want to make up the dimensions of your constituante parts you can do whatever you want.

[knowerastronomy]

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to shoehorn the equation to be dimensionally sound?

Express mass M in terms of the U1 "unit masses", so that M becomes a dimensionless count of particles.

Then if all U1 are spherical and identical, wouldn't their kinetic energy be proportional to their rotation rate? Express R in terms of the kinetic energy of a single U1 particle.

Would this work?

 

E = (M/M_u) E_u R/R_u

Where M is mass,

M_u is the mass of a U1 particle,

R is rotational speed of the particles,

R_u is the unit rotational speed of a U1 particle?

 

E_u is the (kinetic?) energy of a U1 particle rotating at R_u

 

Then just combine the constants into one: U = E_u/(M_uR_u), with the right dimensions, and E=MRU

 

Though, I don't think this should be done, for the same reason that we shouldn't try to force any other idea to work, such as "all energy can be explained by the existence of tiny U1 rechargeable batteries that no one can ever detect." I suppose since energy is convertible, it can be converted and stored in rotating particles, or tiny batteries, or in the body heat of tiny U1 gnomes, etc... Without evidence to suggest that one of these exists while another doesn't, why assume that it does?

 

 

 

Have you considered instead of tiny rotating particles, that maybe the U1s are perhaps vibrating strings? That might be a strategy toward getting your theory to say anything you want.

 

Your post is interesting and I am glad I checked in and red it. I will think about it all night and then probably some more. . .

 

As far as String Theory goes it isn't consistent with No Empty Space, even with closed strings. . . It imply's multidimensional space. . .

[md65536]

Your post is interesting and I am glad I checked in and red it. I will think about it all night and then probably some more. . .

 

As far as String Theory goes it isn't consistent with No Empty Space, even with closed strings. . . It imply's multidimensional space. . .

 

Don't lose sleep over it!

An advantage of string theory is that, while it is also based on tiny made-up things, it corresponds with other theories and observations of reality. That is, it explains what we actually observe, in addition to a bunch of things we don't. I think it'd be better to try to explain things the way they're observed (even if it doesn't seem to make sense) rather than explain how you imagine them to be (ideally you'd devise an experiment that shows it's both). Not corresponding with other theories is a problem for your theory, not a benefit.