Information Subsumes Physical Energy

[newbie_0]

Hi RMT, the tshirt arrived today. It's awsome hehe!

I had been hung up on the concept of s. I get that now. Sort of... I still don't know what it's trying to represent but I understand it's a 1 dimensional unit length. It's not a constant is it?

For m, I understand it as a 3x3 matix but again I don't know what each vector would represent.

Basically I think I'm at the point know if you gave me all the numbers, I could punch it into the calculator. Well, the matrix math I'd have to go to wikipedia to refresh but I could do it. I have no idea how to use any mathlab type software.

eg: (all units are SI)
m =
[ 2, 1, 2],
[-1,-2,-1],
[ 2, 1, 2]

I = m * 2 ^ 3

I just picked some random numbers but is that what it would look like with some values filled out?

So if that matrix is mass in 3 dimensions, I don't understand how to visualize that at all. Does each line in the matrix mean something specific about the mass?

Essentially, the information revolution that we have lived through is empircal evidence for the truthfulness of my proposed equation. Would you agree?

Yes I would agree with that. Although I'm more synical, that makes me also think about how advertisers sell beauty products to people who feel ugly, emperically...

If you perform a similar dimensional analysis upon my proposed equation for information, you will note that it is an equation that is completely devoid of TIME.

How far away do you think I am from performing a dimensional analysis hehe? To what does the analysis being devoid of time, hint?

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi newbie,

Hi RMT, the tshirt arrived today. It's awsome hehe!

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Feel free to market them, but just remember who gets a cut of the action for coming up with the equation!

I know someone who might like one of these handsome pieces of apparal for Xmas! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

I had been hung up on the concept of s. I get that now. Sort of... I still don't know what it's trying to represent but I understand it's a 1 dimensional unit length. It's not a constant is it?

Whether or not it is a constant depends on what aspect of the relationship between information and matter you are analyzing. Certainly there are some cases where my equation can be applied where the length "S" could be a constant... One good example that should stick out like a sore thumb is the very concept of Planck length!!!
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

Now isn't that just an interesting coincidence? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
However, there are other cases where I believe my equation is useful for predicting variable types of spatial boundaries, and how they relate to mass and total information. For example, I have a theory that my equation could describe the characteristic length associated with the boundary of any given galaxy. The solution for "S" in this case would depend upon how much total information the galaxy contains per unit Matter (IOW, solve the equation for "S" as a function of I/m... actually the cube root of I/m).

For m, I understand it as a 3x3 matix but again I don't know what each vector would represent. (snip)
So if that matrix is mass in 3 dimensions, I don't understand how to visualize that at all. Does each line in the matrix mean something specific about the mass

First of all, I made an error in my above explanation. The "m" in my equation is actually a 3x3x3 matrix. There is an extra dimension in it. If you've been reading my math posts where I am sharing more of the foundation for this theory with jmpet, you might be able to get a better idea of where this 3x3x3 matrix of Matter comes from. But let me try to tie some thoughts together for you:
1) Recall from earlier in this thread, that I believe in Newton's "F=ma", the "m" is MASS, which we tend to treat as a scalar quantity (i.e. not a vector, which has both magnitude and orientation). It is my belief that if we actually treat the thing we call "Mass" as a full 3-vector (I can show how mass does have both magnitude and orientation characteristics associated with it), that we will come to a greater understanding of the full tensor form of Newton's "F=ma", which will lead us to revelations with regard to "anti-gravity" technology (i.e. how to generate forces that oppose gravity).
2) It is also my belief that the "m" in Einstein's E=mc^2 (which is also treated as a scalar) is actually what I call Matter (Mass/Time). Since I believe Mass should be treated as a 3-vector, and since I also believe the measurement we call Time is a 3-vector, then the blending of these two 3-vectors would result in a rank 2 tensor (to clarify: A scalar is a rank 0 tensor, a vector is a rank 1 tensor, and the multiplication or division of two vectors yields a rank 2 tensor). So I believe that the differential definition of Matter that I provide in the other thread results in Matter being a rank 2 tensor. So if Mass is a vector, it has one subscripting index that can take on one of three values (i,j,k). Then Matter is a rank 2 tensor, which means it is described with two subscripting indices, and each of these indices can take on either the values of (i,j,k). This would also result in Matter being a 3x3 matrix, where Mass is just a 3-vector.
3) Following the same pattern established in (1) and (2) when we move up to my equation, this would make the "m" in my equation a rank 3 tensor (3 subscripting indices). And each of these 3 subscripts can take on the three values of (i,j,k). That is how you get the 3x3x3 nature of the "m" tensor in my equation I = ms^3. I just don't know what to call this parameter yet. I mean, MASS defines the 3-vector quantity, MATTER defines the rank 2 tensor, but I don't know what to call the rank 3 tensor "m" in my equation...any ideas?

I hope this helped out a bit in your understanding. If not, try to follow the math I lay out in the other thread, as it might answer some of your questions. Or you might have more specific questions in that discussion that I might be able to answer.

Basically I think I'm at the point know if you gave me all the numbers, I could punch it into the calculator. Well, the matrix math I'd have to go to wikipedia to refresh but I could do it. I have no idea how to use any mathlab type software.

eg: (all units are SI)
m =
[ 2, 1, 2],
[-1,-2,-1],
[ 2, 1, 2]

I = m * 2 ^ 3

I just picked some random numbers but is that what it would look like with some values filled out?

As noted above, the "m" tensor (rank 3) in my equation would actually be represented by a 3x3x3 matrix (a cube, rather than a square). So your matrix above would need to be expanded to include two more layers that look just like the one you exhibited. Furthermore, I don't think it would be correct to depict "s^3" as just a single, scalar constant being raised to the 3rd power. Remember, "s" is length, and that makes "s^3" (3-D Space) a 3-vector. And since a 3-vector is represented in matrix maths as a column matrix, then the actual structure of my equation would show itself as being a 3x3x3 matrix multipled by a column matrix (vector). Thus, a bit more than what you have above... but you are on the right track.

As to plugging numbers in, I don't think we are "there" yet. I don't think you would learn anything substantial by doing this. I'd suggest you continue to work on understanding how F=ma progresses to E=mc^2 and then how that progresses to I=ms^3. Then, when the time is right, and we have enough understanding about these equations under our belt, doing examples with "real" values for the numbers will be more useful and will tell us a great deal more than just using "random numbers" in the matrices now.

How far away do you think I am from performing a dimensional analysis hehe?

A dimensional analysis, especially with these 3 simplfied equations, is an easy thing to do. All we need to do is express all the values on the right hand sides of these equations in their most basic dimensions.

Force=ma ---> [Mass]*[Space]/[Time]^2
Energy=mc^2 --> [Mass]*[Space]^2/[Time]^2
Information=ms^3 --> [Mass]*[Space]^3

That's all there is to a dimensional analysis.

To what does the analysis being devoid of time, hint?

Well, what it tells me is that "Information" is a measurement of our physical universe that exists OUTSIDE of the dimension of Time. IOW, the total amount of information in our universe never changes with Time. There are many other different ways to express what this equation and its independence with Time might be telling us:

1) Total information content of our universe never varys with Time.
2) Information is expressed as Mass (Objects) existing in 3-D Space.
3) For a constant amount of Mass, if the characteristic Spatial length (s) is varied, the amount of information increases with the third power of that Spatial length. (i.e. a much greater number of different points of view from which one can observe the Mass).
4) For a constant characteristic Spatial length (s), if the amount of Mass is increased, the amount of information increases linearly with that Mass.

But I believe there are much more interesting things that we can learn from the fractal embedded relationship between the Force, Energy, and Information equations. Prior to the advent of Einstein, Newtonian physics associated with Force and Acceleration were the focus of our scientific understanding of our universe. Once Einstein came along, he showed us how it is not "all about Force", but rather that there is a higher-dimensional metric called Energy which dictates what is possible with respect to Forces, Moments, Accelerations, and physics in general. In essence, Einstein told us that "Energy subsumes Newton's ideas of physical Force". I also believe that Einstein is the one who moved us from a static concept of "Mass" to a more dynamic concept of "Matter" and how it relates to a special velocity barrier we call the speed of light.

I am just wishing to take this fractal progression from Force to Energy and extend it outward by one more fractal layer. What I am trying to say is that understanding our universe is not just "all about Energy", but rather there is a higher-dimensional metric called Information which dictates what is possible with respect to Energy and physical manifestations in our universe of physics. That is why it is my claim that...

"Information subsumes Einstein's ideas of physical Energy" - Ray Hudson (10/29/2005) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

 

[newbie_0]

I'm still studying your last post but as for what to call it? How about Kashmir (led zeppelin song reference)

=)

 

[RainmanTime]

Evolving BEYOND Time: Information over Energy

I've been attempting to present a specific view of geometrodynamic dimensionality when I talk about Massive SpaceTime. This view is that we do live in a 3-dimensional universe. However, where people assign these 3-dimensions as the "X-Y-Z" dimensions of SPACE, I try to take a larger view and claim that the 3 Dimensions of physical existence are really: Mass (+), Space (0), and Time (-).

Furthermore, I counter the typical scientific view of how 3-D Space expands to 4-D SpaceTime by explaining how the 3-Dimensional geometrodynamic field described by my Massive SpaceTime model further decomposes into subsets of THREES.

ENERGY is a proven 3-way mixture of the geometrodynamical field that I call Massive SpaceTime. And Massive SpaceTime is a 3x3 tensor, therefore ENERGY is a 3x3 tensor.

INFORMATION is what I believe is the next highest geometrodynamical dimensional expression beyond ENERGY. And if my math is correct, which so far I don't find any errors, then the tensor field of INFORMATION would then be described as a 3x3x3 tensor.

I believe our increasing abilities to collect INFORMATION from many different points in SPACE is a capability that will precipitate our future culture's EVOLUTION to a state of AWARENESS that is BEYOND LINEAR TIME.

At that point in our human Evolution, the ability to "Time Travel" as we currently think about it in linear terms will no longer be of any consqequence whatsoever. It will become an archaic type of thought, for we will have come to a higher-dimensional understanding of what TIME is and how it fits into ENERGY and INFORMATION.

But that's just me....I could be completely wrong, if someone found a way to falsify my work.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Re: Evolving BEYOND Time: Information over Energy

RMT

I try to take a larger view and claim that the 3 Dimensions of physical existence are really: Mass (+), Space (0), and Time (-).

I would agree on mass. But my experimental observations suggest mass is a reference frame that matter aligns to, yet only occupies one direction. There would be three states of mass. Expanding, contracting, and at rest. But only two states appear to be present continuously. Contracting and at rest. Expanding mass, or worded differently, mass increasing in intensity doesn't seem to be present. Yet fusion reactions of elements above iron would require this type of mass to be present for creation of those elements. So quite possibly at one time in the evolution of the universe, this type of mass was present. Contracting mass is how I visualize the concept of gravity.

Ok now, if mass just comprises one direction, and space appears to be three dimensional, then the other two directions are not comprised of mass. My candidates would be charge fields and magnetic fields. Each of which can be shown mathematically to exist at right angles to each other.

Then there is time. I did suggest that time appears to cancel with equal but opposing declining intensities of magnetic and charge fields, thus producing the mass effect. So mass normally by itself does not move in time. But mass does decline in intensity on the sun. That would create the time arrow that we see present in the universe. I have to point out that this is my opinion at present. But it does seem to fit the observations.

Now it is my intent to create a mass field that increases in intensity. I do have a novel way to do this electronically. As you can see I am building on this information that I have aquired through trial and error. No time machine yet. But I do defintely have a direction and a path to follow.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Evolving BEYOND Time: Information over Energy

Good Morning, Einstein:

But my experimental observations suggest mass is a reference frame that matter aligns to, yet only occupies one direction.

We've discussed before that your experimental observations are more qualitative than they are quantitative. I'd be one of the first to jump on your bandwagon if you had precision measuring instruments which provided accurate data from which your observations were derived.

There would be three states of mass. Expanding, contracting, and at rest.

Here is where I agree that we are both speaking the same language...base language that is. We can argue about how we describe three orthogonal measures of anything, and IMO the names we give them are the least of our worries. This is why I say that Mass, Space, and Time are not "real". They are simply convenient forms of agreement because they are the "dimensions" that our senses induce us to believe are real. What is more important (again, IMO) is that dimensionality "occurs" in sets of three orthonormal subsets... always. And I believe that experiment after experiment shows us that Mass, Space, and Time are related, but in a sense "orthogonal" to each other.

To give an example: Above you call the three orthonormal subsets of Mass "expanding, contracting, and at rest". What if I were to call them "electron, proton, and neutron"? Who is right? Answer: We both are right and wrong at the same time. We are right in describing these aspects of Mass as being orthogonal to one another. We are wrong in trying to give them specific names. So what I would suggest is that we simply agree that the conceptual dimension we call Mass has three orthonormal subdimensions... and instead of words how about we designate these subdimensions as: +, 0, and -? Convenient enough?

Expanding mass, or worded differently, mass increasing in intensity doesn't seem to be present.

So far as our limited senses can tell us. And yet there are those mysterious, quantified measures which physicists are calling Dark Matter and Dark Energy. And DE certainly fits into an "expanding" category, if this is the popular mechanism which is driving the universe apart at an accelerating rate.

Ok now, if mass just comprises one direction, and space appears to be three dimensional, then the other two directions are not comprised of mass. My candidates would be charge fields and magnetic fields. Each of which can be shown mathematically to exist at right angles to each other.

The 3-D field of Space is a perfect backdrop (pardon the pun) to explore why there is no point in trying to describe the underlying orthogonality for each dimension. We know from statics and dynamics that if two people choose two different coordinate systems for Space (say, rectlinear cartesian X-Y-Z coordinates and spherical R-Theta-Phi coordinates) that they will come to different conclusions and invariably have arguments about who's representation is "right". In the end, they are BOTH "right", and the most important aspect of 3-D coordinate systems is that the subdimensions are orthogonal to one another. Would you agree that this is true, certainly for Space?

To me, the single most interesting aspect of physics in our universe is the concept of orthogonality. It is omnipresent, and seems to be an underlying principle we cannot escape. This is exactly why I extend ortogonality to the "dimensions" we call Mass, Space (already known to be made up of 3-D orthogonal directions), and yes, TIME.

Then there is time. I did suggest that time appears to cancel with equal but opposing declining intensities of magnetic and charge fields, thus producing the mass effect. So mass normally by itself does not move in time. But mass does decline in intensity on the sun. That would create the time arrow that we see present in the universe. I have to point out that this is my opinion at present. But it does seem to fit the observations.

Well, again I must point out that your observations are not necessarily quantitative. This is not a criticism, but a continued suggestion for you to acquire some precision measuring equipment. If you really are interested in quantifying your observations, you should not be afraid of doing this. Only someone who would benefit by keeping their observations qualitative would hedge at getting better measurements to prove their observations are correct.

But again, I have always wanted to engage and discuss with you the concepts of mutual orthogonality, and why things come in threes. I think, without a doubt, we both understand that the subdimensions of how we measure Space are orthogonal. And it seems from this last post of your that, no matter what names we attach to Mass, we would both agree that its subsets, or subdimensions, would be "orthogonal" to each other. (Understanding that we are having to expand orthogonal from being simply a measure of spatial right-angledness to a more general state of being where there is an ACTIVE, NEUTRAL, and PASSIVE element to each subdimension).

AND... if we both tend to agree to this principle of mutual "orthogonality" of both Space and Mass, then wouldn't it be a "perfect fit" for the third element of our physical reality (TIME) to also obey that same principle of mutual orthogonality of its subdimensions?

I have to point out that this is my opinion at present. But it does seem to fit the observations.

And I have to point out that my Massive SpaceTime 3x3x3 theory is also my opinion. But it does fit well within the well-established fields of geometrodynamics and tensor mathematics. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Now it is my intent to create a mass field that increases in intensity. I do have a novel way to do this electronically. As you can see I am building on this information that I have aquired through trial and error.

I'd suggest that my mathematical tensor approach to groupings of threes and orthogonality may help guide you in your trial and error. (More trials, less error).

I'd like to ask: Do you have any problems (and by this I mean errors) with the mathematics of Mass, Space, Time, Matter, and Motion I have developed in my other thread? If so, speak up. I will eventually get back to this thread and expand the math more until it gets to the point where you can see the full connection to tensor calculus. At that point, this thread and the "RainmanTime's maths for jmpet" threads will naturally want to come together.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Re: Evolving BEYOND Time: Information over Energy

RMT

You bring up lots of points.

I'd like to ask: Do you have any problems (and by this I mean errors) with the mathematics of Mass, Space, Time, Matter, and Motion I have developed in my other thread? If so, speak up.

We both have different ways to interpret what we see. I had come up with an original assumption quite a while back and it is sort of the basis for some of my investigations. The assumption being that time and space are extensions of matter. And now I come up with a plausable solution for creating an area of space that behaves like mass. But the behavior is clearly in one dimension only. Kind of like I created or turned on one of the three dimensions of space. I don't believe anyone has ever interpreted it that way before. Mathematically each dimension by itself would be independant of the other two. Just another way to say orthogonal to. The idea that the dimensions are just extensions of matter very well could lead to control over something very basic indeed. So the only thing I would differ with you is that your three coordinates for space would not be given. They would have to be mathematically derived. And that I do believe has not been done before. It would probably be a closed loop type of system. So you see I am looking hard for more clues as to how this closed loop system self perpetuates. Not all the data is in yet. And definitely more and varied interpretations are needed to create more comprehension.

 

[Good_Scientist]

Re: Evolving BEYOND Time: Information over Energy

Just another way to say orthogonal to. The idea that the dimensions are just extensions of matter very well could lead to control over something very basic indeed. So the only thing I would differ with you is that your three coordinates for space would not be given. They would have to be mathematically derived. And that I do believe has not been done before.

This is not true. Orthogonal dimensions are used in wave functions of orbitals in atomic and molecular physical chemistry. My area of expertise. So 3 dimension and even time have been derived in this way before, but only for atomic orbitals that i know of, but chances are someone has at some point investigated mass and space in this manner.

Einstein, what level of scientific education have you been given? Because you appear to know alot of the more exotic and difficult concepts.

Good Scientist

 

[Einstein]

Re: Evolving BEYOND Time: Information over Energy

Good_Scientist

I don't think you quite understood my meaning when I said the dimensions have to be mathematically derived. My experimental investigations are suggesting that the dimensions of space do not normally exist, but are constructs of matter. Obviously a mathematical model would be required to parallel this suspected behavior.

Einstein, what level of scientific education have you been given? Because you appear to know alot of the more exotic and difficult concepts.

Just a year and a half through college. But I do have an intense interest in physics and mathematics. And as such I have aquired quite a vast knowledge on the subjects.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Evolving BEYOND Time: Information over Energy

Hi Einstein,

You bring up lots of points.

Yes, I do. And the intent is to try to flesh-out where we are in agreement. However, if you don't address at least some of these points, and give me feedback on them, how will we know if we are in agreement on some things? Sometimes it is a bit frustrating, as I get the feeling you are only interested in pursuing your theories, and not really interested in collaboration. If I can find out where we agree, I might be able to support you with some powerful math.

The assumption being that time and space are extensions of matter.

Point 1 - I am trying to understand if you have a distinction in your understanding of mass and matter. I have presented one (above and in other threads), and I think it is mathematically justified. If you do make a distinction, but it differs from mine, I'd be interested in how you see it.

Mathematically each dimension by itself would be independant of the other two. Just another way to say orthogonal to.

I think Good_Scientist was also responding to this (not sure), but I would also like to point out that this is not totally correct. If you mean "independent" in a general sense, I could buy it. However, there are clearly cases where cause-effects are dependent yet also orthogonal to one another. For example, gyroscopic precession is one such example. To me, this is an important distinction because, like you, I believe that all things are connected, and therefore dependent. Therefore, when I use "orthogonal" I am trying to preserve the mathematical meaning of it that relates to being able to transform one element to another while preserving the magnitude of a vector. Strict independence is not a necessary condition, nor could it be proven IMO.

So the only thing I would differ with you is that your three coordinates for space would not be given. They would have to be mathematically derived. And that I do believe has not been done before. It would probably be a closed loop type of system.

But derived from what? I do think I am saying something similar. But I extend it to beyond the measure of Space. Indeed, I am saying that Mass, Space, AND what we think of as Time are all fictional measures. It is only in combinations of these measures that we approach a sense of what is "real". And science backs this up in that there are no conservation laws for Mass, Space, or Time individually. Yet the conservation laws that we have established as "real" all deal with the 3-way mixture of what I call Massive SpaceTime. When you look at the laws for conservation of Momentum, Energy, and even the CPT symmetry conservation law, you will see that they are all triplex mixtures of orthogonal metrics.

In fact, the verification of these symmetry laws is yet another piece of evidence that we are locked within a manifest universe where "things" have to manifest as groupings of threes.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Re: Evolving BEYOND Time: Information over Energy

RMT

Yes, I do. And the intent is to try to flesh-out where we are in agreement. However, if you don't address at least some of these points, and give me feedback on them, how will we know if we are in agreement on some things? Sometimes it is a bit frustrating, as I get the feeling you are only interested in pursuing your theories, and not really interested in collaboration. If I can find out where we agree, I might be able to support you with some powerful math.

I didn't address everything because now I have ten hour work days. So my responce time is in limited supply.

Point 1 - I am trying to understand if you have a distinction in your understanding of mass and matter. I have presented one (above and in other threads), and I think it is mathematically justified. If you do make a distinction, but it differs from mine, I'd be interested in how you see it.

I would describe matter as a composite of the four dimensions. You have seen my simplified analysis of mass just being compressed length. Mass is just one of the properties of matter. It doesn't appear to have direction by itself. But add time to it and you can compress or inflate the length state. The compressing length state is how I would describe gravity. Mass is just a stationary one dimensional reference frame for matter to reference off. Gravity appears to me to be a moving reference frame that matter references off of. But this latest idea that I came across using the declining voltage pulses from a tesla coil to create an inward force, and then combine it with the declining magnetic pulses of my lorentz force antigravity generator to create an outward force of equal intensity should create a freeze state in space. It would take more energy to move matter out of this freeze state area than if the freeze state wasn't present. The freeze state could be mathematically equated to mass. The mass is one dimension of length. It was created using a special state of charge and a special state of a magentic field.

Mathematically each dimension by itself would be independant of the other two. Just another way to say orthogonal to.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Good_Scientist was also responding to this (not sure), but I would also like to point out that this is not totally correct. If you mean "independent" in a general sense, I could buy it. However, there are clearly cases where cause-effects are dependent yet also orthogonal to one another. For example, gyroscopic precession is one such example. To me, this is an important distinction because, like you, I believe that all things are connected, and therefore dependent. Therefore, when I use "orthogonal" I am trying to preserve the mathematical meaning of it that relates to being able to transform one element to another while preserving the magnitude of a vector. Strict independence is not a necessary condition, nor could it be proven IMO.

Yes, I do agree, not entirely independent. But mass is not charge or magnetic. So There does appear to be independence on some levels.

So the only thing I would differ with you is that your three coordinates for space would not be given. They would have to be mathematically derived. And that I do believe has not been done before. It would probably be a closed loop type of system.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But derived from what? I do think I am saying something similar. But I extend it to beyond the measure of Space. Indeed, I am saying that Mass, Space, AND what we think of as Time are all fictional measures. It is only in combinations of these measures that we approach a sense of what is "real". And science backs this up in that there are no conservation laws for Mass, Space, or Time individually. Yet the conservation laws that we have established as "real" all deal with the 3-way mixture of what I call Massive SpaceTime. When you look at the laws for conservation of Momentum, Energy, and even the CPT symmetry conservation law, you will see that they are all triplex mixtures of orthogonal metrics.

I am starting to look at this as a closed loop type of system. By example if each dimension of length is created by interactions going on with two other dimensions, then a math model to just parallel the observed behavior would be all that is needed. Right now I would just work on the math model that derives mass using the declining magnetic and electric field pulses. Mass being just one dimension of length. If this can be done with one dimension, then obviously more observations are needed to see how to do this with the two other dimensions of length. Or just a different approach to describe existing data.

 

[RainmanTime]

Hello Iq,

One problem I have always had with general relativity, and more broadly with the idea of the universe as a mere four-dimensional system, is what it implies about chance and predestination, chaos and order, and so on. For instance, it seems to me that if the only venues upon which reality has to operate are space and time (as is implied by GR), then that strongly limits the versatility of the universe.

One thing that you shouldn't forget is that Einstein could not unify his concept of space-time with mass. He showed their relationship to the overall metric of energy, but in his model mass and space-time were still two distinct entities. So all is not lost! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

That model would mean that every instant is set, that past, present, and future are already written, and that free will is an illusion. It would also indicate, even more unbelievably, that one could follow the tree of object-events in space-time back to its root at the big bang. It is a monumental stretch of the imagination to think that that one event, that single big bang, gave rise, on the first try no less, to our astoundingly complicated and perfect clockwork universe. I can not accept that. If that's supposed to be science, then we may as well implicate a divine watchmaker setting the gears in motion before the beginning of time. It's too outlandish an assertion, as far as I'm concerned.

It could very well mean that. But as long as our universe is NOT closed (i.e. energy and/or information can cross its boundaries) then again, all is not lost.

This is where your ideas ring true for me, as I've entertained very similar ones.

I should again point out that most of these ideas are not mine, but rather are derived (or directly cited) from the ancient study of Qabalah and the Tree Of Life. What I have done is to simply connect the mystical tellings of how the universe (and ourselves) are structured to the scientific knowledge we have accumulated through our history. It is my belief that this is why people cannot (or at least will have a hard time) falsifying my theory. This is also something that I don't think too many of my "critics," on this forum and elsewhere, have picked up on... all that I am doing is showing how existing science can be "tweaked" (to use a highly technical Titor term) in such a way that it opens a door to a new layer of understanding... and at the same time matches mystical knowledge that has been around since before Christ.

I always like to point out that the human body is definitely an instantiation of the Tree Of Life (TOL). It follows the 3x3 structure to a T, as does the basis of our being, DNA. Not only is this not a coincidence, but it tells me that the TOL network diagram is a blueprint for highly effective information processing physical entities. And so I have simply adopted this blueprint in my research and development for my Massive SpaceTime theory. The scientific groundwork was already there from past generations that taught us about Mass, Space, and Time. And all I have done is looked at the TOL and said "hey, if we look at Mass and Time as 3-vectors just like we do Space, it not only fits the TOL architecture, but it reveals new understandings about what may lie beyond the scope of energy."

Similarly, might one not think of energy as a higher metric of matter, time as a higher metric of space, (hell, why not?) mind as a higher metric of the brain?

Einstein's famous equation is, indeed, telling us that Energy is a higher metric of the combination that I call Massive SpaceTime. However, I would not call time a higher metric of space, as I believe that they are on equal footings as 3-vectors. On the mind/brain issue, I believe one can look at the mind as being embedded within the brain, and I believe there is anothe relationship to the TOL. IOW, the "mind" is really comprised of an embedded set of 3 layers with 3 elements in each layer. The conscious layer (represented by 7-8-9 on the TOL) is the layer that interacts with the physical substrate of the brain.

And if information is to energy/time as energy/time is to matter/space, might we not think of information, in the form of the ultimately-superposed, holographic eigenstate of the universe, as a fifth mutually-perpendicular dimension along with space and time?

I think you're close, and I agree our terminologies may be a bit different. But the way I would word it would be as follows:

1) FORCE is the primary metric that causes Matter to be in Motion here in our 3-D universe of Massive SpaceTime.
2) ENERGY is the primary metric that is the substrate upon which Massive SpaceTime is based. Therefore ENERGY represents the next higher dimension beyond our 3.
3) INFORMATION is the primary metric that can influence how Energy flows (and closed loop control systems is one piece of evidence to this effect). Therefore I would claim that INFORMATION is the representative metric of the dimension beyond Energy.

Quantum physics of course already indicates a state something like this. Heisenbergian probability waves seem to stem from basically the same line of thinking, though without bringing a fifth macro-dimension into the mix. Perhaps modern physics is on the right track. I'm fascinated to see where it's headed from here.

Indeed, there are a great many parallels between the modern science of quantum physics and the ancient mystical knowledge of Qabalah. Further to this, it is my belief that Heisenberg Uncertainty with respect to position and velocity is indicative of what I am talking about with Massive SpaceTime. IOW, whenever you try to separate the elements of Energy (Massive SpaceTime) and measure them independently, you will encounter inherent error because they are constantly balancing each other. This is also why science has shown us that the only Conservation Laws are those which involve triple-mixed metrics of Massive SpaceTime (i.e. Energy, Momentum, and Charge/Parity/Time).

Hypothetical movement at the speed of light would of course place the object's time axis parallel to the vector of its motion through space, at the boundary of its light-cone. But with the dimension of information in place, now we can consider an additional type of movement: any change in the object's quantum structure would constitute some minute movement through the information dimension.

Again I think we are close to a common understanding. But don't forget the embedding that I am proposing: Information subsumes physical Energy. Physical Energy subsumes physical Force. And Force is the primary metric of Matter-Motion-Tense which decomposes to the fundamental units we call Mass, Space, and Time. So with respect to what you write above, it is my belief that the information dimension can (and does) have a direct impact on how Energy changes its form, and thus how Massive SpaceTime plays out in our dimension.

Space, time, and information together form a continuum. The three venues are integrally linked. And I believe (if I am correct in my understanding) this is what you have been saying all along with your model of massive-space-time.

Close, but not quite. What I have been saying is that Massive SpaceTime is a 3x3 continuum that rules our physical universe. The only metric that can accurately describe it is the triple combined metrics of Energy and, to lesser degrees, momentum and force. And Einstein's famous Energy equation actually defines the expanding surface of our universe's "Hubble Bubble". Where Information comes into the picture is that it encapulates the entire "Hubble Bubble" of expanding Energy. So if you were to describe all of this as a single continuum, I would describe it as Force-Energy-Information where:

Force = simple 3-D vector
Energy = 3x3 tensor of rank 1
Information = 3x3x3 tensor of rank 2

How's that? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif
RMT

 

[singularity]

hello, i still see you are fine tuning your math RMT, and to great effect.
to answer a PM you sent me....yes im always in contact.
remember 9 was always the key.

 

[RainmanTime]

Why 9 Is So Important - Human Physical Matrix

I find myself speaking to a singularity...

remember 9 was always the key.

Thank you, and yes I agree. I think it is self-evident when you see that both the human body, and the DNA that describes it, are defined by a 3x3 matrix configuration.

And once you bring up DNA, then it should become evident where the subject matter of this thread (Information Subsumes Physical Energy) is headed. The human physical form is the most advanced processor of physical energy and information that we know of. Furthermore, the design basis for the human physical form is DNA, which is also centered on the preservation and replication of specific genetic INFORMATION.

There can be little argument that we are info-centric beings just as much as we are energy-centric beings. This is our physical nature, and it can be explained mathematically in so many diverse ways. One of the best ways it has been explained, both physically and mathematically, is in our history of technology.

1) We first mastered the physics of FORCES and MOMENTUM. Newton was the father of this era of Forces, and one of the ultimate designs of the "Force Age" was the 6-Degree-Of-Freedom powered aircraft perfected by the Wright Brothers. It lead us to our exo-terra spacecraft of today.
2) We since have come to master the physics of ENERGY. Einstein was the father of this era where he expanded upon the Newtonian equations by describing the realm of spacetime, the metric tensor, and the stress-energy tensor.
3) Our current civilization is now in the midst of learning to master the physics of INFORMATION. One might claim that VonNeumann, Turing, Babbage, or even Gates as being the fathers of this era. I don't know. But I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a fractal/embedded natural structure to Forces, Energy, and Information. And I think I can take the math of Einstein to a new level, with just a few "tweaks" on the vector/tensor models.

I really don't think "it" is about Energy (or Oil) anymore. I think "it" is about a higher level metric, and that metric is Information.

But that's just my theory. Anyone could come along and falsify it.
RMT

 

[singularity]

Re: Why 9 Is So Important - Human Physical Matrix

im glad you brought up the DNA as it is a big factor in "time" travel. "the last time" i was here you seemed to be the only one making sense and low and behold STILL the only one making sense.some things never change.


The emergence of this world is no more than thoughts coming into manifestation. from the infinite consciouseness we have created each other in our imagination. as long as there is a "you" and "i", there is no liberation. we are all the one cosmic consciousness assuming individual form.
Events unfold in time but are born outside of time.

 

[RainmanTime]

Information Ontology Modeling at NASA. The URL below describes an approach to information management that is not only "on the right track" but it represents the very beginning of the kinds of technologies (including advances in Articficial Intelligence) that will come about from the understanding of information as a tensor that I am describing in this thread.

http://aeronautics.arc.nasa.gov/assets/pdf/NExIOMVision.pdf

So far, the only thing I see as troublesome with this approach is that they are adopting a model (DoDAF) that does not treat information as a tensor, and therefore the "basis vectors" (categories) they are using to define their information model are non-orthogonal. That always spells trouble... imagine doing a vector dynamical analysis without using orthogonal basis vectors! Not only would the analysis be wrong, it would not obey the rule of transformation invariance, and would be unbelieveably difficult to re-engineer any analytical solutions into an orthogonal basis vector set.

But what do I know?

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

How Human History Supports What I Am Explaining

Since I know that there are several lurkers out there who expressed interest in this thread, and are continuing to read it, I thought this would be a good time to resurrect it and add some new information to it.

When one looks at the history of human development and progress with regard to the nesting of Force, Energy, and Information as I am describing in this thread, you can see that historical development has followed this nesting of technical capabilities. While this truth is shown by all the technical developments of science in our history, I would like to make my point about this crystal clear by focusing on a very specific form of development: The development of warfare technologies. When we look at how man has improved his ability to wage war we will see the clear nested progression of how we progressed from one age to the next:

The Age of Force (Pre-history thru 1600s)
The very term "Military Force" came from this part of our history for a very good reason. At this stage of our development when you used the words "military force" you literally meant an application of FORCE, from one man to another. That was how wars were waged: One man or a group of men applying various forms of mechanical Forces against their opponent. The Force of the spear exerted by one man to thrust into the chest of another. The Force imparted to a man's neck when a heavy sword is swung at high velocity as it impacts and takes the opponent's head off his shoulders. The sheer Force (weight) of a large chariot being drawn by several large horses as it runs over a human being, crushing him with those forces of weight and impulse. Yes, there is no doubt that the equation "Force = Mass times Acceleration" ruled the military technology of this age in human history!

And interestingly enough, we can place the END of the age of Force at the very time that a scientist was able to numerically quantify the actual equations of Force . That would be Sir Issac Newton, and his 2nd Law of Motion. From 1669 to 1687 is the time frame when Newton was at Cambridge and when he authored the Principia that laid out his amazing work. As early as 1666 (interesting coicidental number!) he has working versions of his 3 laws of motion. However, by the nature and discoveries of the people that would come after Newton, it is clear that Newton's brilliant equations that quantified Force were the discoveries that spelled the end of the age of Force and the beginning of the age of Energy.

The Age of Energy (1700s thru 1945)
As scientists continued to quantify the relationships between Force, Momentum, and overall Energy the technology of warfare evolved from weapons which simply delivered a force from one man to another, into weapons that could deliver large amounts of Energy to the intended target. This was the age when we perfected the projectile weapons (Cannons, Shot, Bullets). Rather than just focusing on the Force applied, scientists of this age could now focus on the overall application of Energy that a weapon could deliver. This understanding that Energy actually rules over the application of Force was also evident in the development of the airplane by the Wright Brothers and so many others who developed the science that they relied upon.

Much like the age of Force, we can also identify the end of the age of Energy with a scientist who was able to quantify the measure of Energy in a simple Law. That scientist is, of course, Einstein who quantified that Energy is related to a body's Mass times the speed of light squared (E=mc^2). The beginning of the end of the age of Energy was when Einstein quantified this Law. The very end of the end of the age of Energy was when it was put into practice as a weapon of war: 1945 and the atomic bomb.

The Age of Information (1945 thru Today)
There would be little doubt that the Information age began with the minds of people like Turing, Church, Godel, VonNeumann, and who could forget Shannon? All of these famous men, and so many others, helped us to understand the relationship between Energy and Information. And we must also recognize that the Information age began with the discovery and development of the electronic transistor by AT&T (and others) in 1947. This discovery of an important electronic form called the TRIODE exceeded the capabilities of the DIODE that came before it. This advancement lead to the computer and information revolution that we all have lived through in the 80s, 90s, and into our current time in the early 2000s.

I think we are only in the middle of the Information age. We are only now beginning to realize how Information is a metric which has the ability to control the expenditures of Energy. Once a specific scientist is able to describe the relationship between Information and Mass and Space it is my belief that we will understand Information enough to be able to reach the end of the Information age.

RMT

 

[creedo299]

The real motive, do you want this?

Information Subsumes Physical Energy

And the mass of this energy consumes itself.The end of the Star Wars era, what Rainman Time has not told you about.

They made two movies.These were The Final Fantasy and The Chronicles Of Riddick.

Both dealt with the amerialization, leaching of the energy of a vast society.

You see, the Star Wars era and what had happened in it were all true.

What Liza Givens put on her show, about the first and second of the series of Star Wars being a past time event, is entirely true.

The only thing that I do not have, is how Lucas got ahold of this information.

I know, that the powers that be used it.

Here is what happened.

The size of that civilization got so large, that a plague swept it.

It was an energy form, so insidious, that it suck the life energy out of people.

Millions if not billions had died from it.

The only way out for some, was to flee from their areas, to very remote parts of their universe.

This well could happen to us all again.

This is so, as the synchronicities match.

Our last big energy plague was that of the viral vampire plagues, of the 16 to 1700s.

This really did happen and this is why the church had ordered municipal records sealed of the viral vampire plagues, but not the clan vampires being there.

Two differing sects.

This could well happen or might happen again, as by the reports of the Montauk conscripts, there is nothing left alive in the future.

If you know better, then please come forward with the right information?

 

[newbie_0]

Re: How Human History Supports What I Am Explaining

"I think we are only in the middle of the Information age. "

Why do you think we are at the middle? Have you guessed when it ends?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: How Human History Supports What I Am Explaining

Hi newbie,

Why do you think we are at the middle? Have you guessed when it ends?

Well, let me clarify that I don't necessarily think we are in the "exact middle" (as in midpoint). In fact, my gut feel is telling me that we might be getting close to the end...perhaps as soon as 2012.

As to my guess when it would end, if it follows the patterns of how the other two ages came to a close, I think the information age will end when:

a) The scientific definition and usefulness of Information is formally quantified. I've taken my shot at it with my equation, and will continue to work on the full-up tensor formulation thereof. Whether I am "right" or not with my quantification of Information remains to be seen.
b) The practical development and deployment of systems which put the quantified equation of Information into practice. Much the same as the advent of the atomic bomb putting Einstein's relativity into practice ended the age of Energy and ushered in the age of Information.

My further guess as to what this will "look like" is based upon my theory (and equation) which states that the metric of Information is something that is "outside" of our perception of linear Time. So I tend to think that when we finally apply the principles of Information to be able to transcend Time, that this will be the end mark of the Information age.

How's that? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT