Hello paladius,
massspacetime. of course they are related. and they are related by their components and the interactions (or brother and sister components).
Mmmm, yes. That is very much a systems view of the issue. I like it. It appears we may have some important areas of common thought on the matter.
mass is what? atoms, then netrons, then protons and electrons, then quark and lepons, then rotations and spins yes?
That is the reductionist view, yes. The systems view would stop reducing once one could identify mutually "orthogonal" components. For me, this is the notion of the proton, electron, and neutron. This represents an ordered set of three which tends to show up all over nature, at least when applying a systems theory analytical approach. One could claim (and this is exactly what I have done in several older threads here) that much as Space has orthogonal subdimensions (as you point out below), why do we not also observe that Mass has similar "orthogonal" subdimensions...namely, electron, proton, and neutron? There is really no need to reduce any further once you identify the systemic elements that are interacting with each other to create the "Mass effect".
space is x,y,z in exponential mathematical terms
Yes...or depending on if you choose a different orthogonal coordinate system you could say "rho, theta, phi" (radius, azimuth, and elevation). They key systemic notion is that the dimension we call Space (which, let us not forget is "artificial" if we accept that Massive SpaceTime cannot be reduced without introducing error) has 3 orthogonal "subdimensions"... much like a larger system can be broken down into subsystems.
time is t and broken down into frequency and ??
Just a slight correction here. Time is not broken down into frequency. Rather Time and Frequency are mathematically reciprocal measures... (i.e. f = 1/T). Mass and Space have similar reciprocal measures, and in science we refer to them as "Specific Mass" and "Specific Volume", respectively.
The question I put to you with regard to your statement/question is this: If we all agree Space has 3 othogonal subdimensions, and we also can see how Mass has 3 "orthogonal" subcomponents (electron, proton, neutron), then why would we single-out Time as only being uni-dimensional?? The answer I would give is that we do this merely because our senses appear to report to us that Time is a single, linear dimension. This may not be so, and I argue it is NOT so. In my Massive SpaceTime theory, I put forth that if you are going to try to "pull apart" Massive SpaceTime into components, you have to do it equally. Thus, Time should also have 3 subordinate, and "orthogonal" subdimensions. I claim it does, indeed... and we call those subdimensions "Past, Present, and Future". In much the same way that we understand that the neutron acts as a neutralizing element to the electron and proton, one could make the argument that the present acts as the neutralizing element between the past (passive) and the future (active).
So what are the common denominators?
IMO the common denominators are that, as a result of our physical makeup and perception, we live within a "3-manifold" universe. IOW, our integrated matrix of energy decomposes into orthogonal sets of 3 dimensions (Mass, Space, and Time), and further to this each of these decompose into 3-fold subdimensions. One could easily observe a fractal system decomposition scheme here...
well what about energy? where shall we place electro-gravation-frequency-EMF-enthalpy? what about thought and perception?
All very good questions. Some I have direct answers for, and some I have my suggestions. I will give a direct answer to the question of energy right now: Energy is a 3-fold (complex) metric of the Integrated Massive SpaceTime "reality". It is "more real" than any measure of Mass, Space, or Time because a measure of energy does not decompose or decouple Mass, from Space, from Time. This is reinforced by the Conservation of Energy law. Get that? To be more direct: The dimensional breakdown of energy is as follows:
Energy is proportional to Mass*Velocity^2. This decomposes to: Mass*Space^2/Time^2. Much can be said to describe exactly what energy is from this analysis... but perhaps you would like to start a new thread to discuss these... so we do not get off topic in this one?
We can place the photons in the mass category and frequency in the time category. What is a photon if did not have a frequency?
In my view these are starting to muddy the water, one reason being that they do not recognize the point I made before which is that Time and Frequency are merely reciprocal metrics for the same "human illusion" (i.e. component of the Integrated Massive SpaceTime Matrix). Photons (specifically) and light (more generally) are experiences of our perceptions which totally defy the normal "decomposition" into Mass, Space, or Time. That is one thing that makes light "special".
A good start, paladius. As I mentioned, it seems we think alike on some counts. That may be worth exploring. I leave it to you to start a new thread if you wish to explore these issues further.
Kind Regards,
RMT
