RainmanTime's Maths - For jmpet

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

jmpet,

Can we leave the pot-shots behind us in this thread? I told you I would begin to explain the more simple aspects of my theory and maths, and that is what I intend to do here. The theory begins with definitions, as should all solid theories. Some defintions are well-known and accepted in science, and others might be disputed. But as long as you refer to these definitions as we move forward, the theory and maths should hold together:

1) Mass - A fictional metric of the force resistance inherent to an object. This metric is thought to be a static (unchanging in Time) measure of a body's inertia which is also thought to be independent of Space. From our empirical measurements of atomic charges and electron quantum states, we know that Mass is anything but static. It is always changing. Science has seen fit (so far) to call this a scalar quantity.
2) Space - Another fictional metric which attempts to define a fixed frame of reference which objects and their motion can be measured with respect to. We know it is fictional because Einstein proved to us that there is NO preferred reference frame, and that all are relative. However, given our world is based upon our human perception, and that is focused on measuring things relative to self, this fictional metric does come in handy, even if it is not 100% accurate. Science calls Space a field, and therefore it has magnitude and direction, so it is a vector.
3) Time - Yet another fictional metric created by mankind as nothing more than a means to be able to track Matter in Motion. Like the other fictional metrics, we used to think Time was fixed and unchangeable, but Einstein again showed us that Time can be dilated...changed. Science again calls this a scalar quantity.
4) Motion - Also Known As (AKA): SpaceTime. This is the first metric we have developed which is not based on static measurements. Rather, it is true to Einstein's GTR in that it defines an integrated relationship between two of our primary metrics described above. We measure Motion as derivatives of Space with respect to Time, usually for some specific body of Mass. Therefore, the "base metric" of motion would be (and is) velocity. Note how velocity is the primary metric that defines levels of kinetic energy. This establishes its importance with respect to any theorized "unified field" of Massive SpaceTime.
5) Matter - I also refer to this as: MassTime. In physics and engineering, this is more commonly known as mass flow rate (m-dot). It is my position that this metric is just as important as SpaceTime, and one can readily see the relative analogy between the two. It is also my position that the concept of Matter, as distinct from Mass, can also help us understand and resolve the difference between "rest mass" and "relativistic mass".

That's enough definitions for now, but there will be more as we go along. But right off the bat I'd like to point out that there should be general agreement that the way we (humans) measure what we think of as "linear time" is actually by measuring Matter in Motion. If Matter is Mass/Time and Motion is Space/Time, some simple math & dimensional analysis will show that what we are really measuring when we track Matter in Motion (Matter/Motion) is: Mass/Space. Another term for this would be mass density. This is something near and dear to Creedo's heart, and a topic I have agreed with him on many occasions. Unfortunately, I have not been successful in getting him to talk in depth about it.

So far, so good? We haven't gotten into any heavy math yet, but that will come in time (pardon the pun). In fact, if you are OK with this so far, I think the next post should begin to describe why the derivative of calculus is so important, and how we can apply the derivative to the definitions above to reach a deeper understanding of established physics... and maybe establish a few "extended" properties of existing physics that we may not have considered before.

RMT
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

Dazzle us with you calculations. I can't wait! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

>Can we leave the pot-shots behind us in this thread?<

Considering you started with the pot shots, as long as you stop the pot shots I see no reason why I can't stop shooting back.


>Some defintions are well-known and accepted in science, and others might be disputed. But as long as you refer to these definitions as we move forward, the theory and maths should hold together<

No problem, as long as you can illustrate how your obscure definitions of elements can be explained, otherwise no one will understand you.

>1) Mass - A fictional metric of the force resistance inherent to an object. This metric is thought to be a static (unchanging in Time) measure of a body's inertia which is also thought to be independent of Space. From our empirical measurements of atomic charges and electron quantum states, we know that Mass is anything but static. It is always changing. Science has seen fit (so far) to call this a scalar quantity.<

Okay- mass is always changing, it's never at rest.

>2) Space - Another fictional metric which attempts to define a fixed frame of reference which objects and their motion can be measured with respect to. We know it is fictional because Einstein proved to us that there is NO preferred reference frame, and that all are relative. However, given our world is based upon our human perception, and that is focused on measuring things relative to self, this fictional metric does come in handy, even if it is not 100% accurate. Science calls Space a field, and therefore it has magnitude and direction, so it is a vector.<

You write "attempts to define", does that mean it is defined or not? Not semantically, like on a subatomic scale but literally- does space exist and is it defined or not?

Does Einstein stating there is no fixed reference point of space mean there is no space, or that space is relative to light?

When you write "relative to self" do you mean "a frame of reference a human mind can conceptualize" or "measurements that are comparable to the human mass"?

Underlying your definition of space is the line "[space] is not 100% accurate". Is this on the subatomic scale only, is it because all objects in the universe are in motion or is it because of the effect the observer has on space? What is confusing is that you're going out of your way to say repeatedly that space is not real, then you end by saying "it is a vector". Well if it's not real, how is it a vector, Victor?

>3) Time - Yet another fictional metric created by mankind as nothing more than a means to be able to track Matter in Motion. Like the other fictional metrics, we used to think Time was fixed and unchangeable, but Einstein again showed us that Time can be dilated...changed. Science again calls this a scalar quantity.<

So time does not exist at all, time is made up. Does this mean neutrons last forever?

>4) Motion - Also Known As (AKA): SpaceTime. This is the first metric we have developed which is not based on static measurements. Rather, it is true to Einstein's GTR in that it defines an integrated relationship between two of our primary metrics described above. We measure Motion as derivatives of Space with respect to Time, usually for some specific body of Mass. Therefore, the "base metric" of motion would be (and is) velocity. Note how velocity is the primary metric that defines levels of kinetic energy. This establishes its importance with respect to any theorized "unified field" of Massive SpaceTime.<

So "motion" is this thing that's relative to space and time. Well if "space" and "time" don't exist, and motion is a derivitave of space and time, how can motion exist?

>5) Matter - I also refer to this as: MassTime. In physics and engineering, this is more commonly known as mass flow rate (m-dot). It is my position that this metric is just as important as SpaceTime, and one can readily see the relative analogy between the two. It is also my position that the concept of Matter, as distinct from Mass, can also help us understand and resolve the difference between "rest mass" and "relativistic mass".<

Does "Masstime" mean that if we could take the time away from mass it would cease to be mass? If so, what would it be then- a black hole, a white hole, an anti-particle or nothing at all?

You wrote "rest mass" but before you said "we know that Mass is anything but static. It is always changing". Can mass be at rest or not?

>But right off the bat I'd like to point out that there should be general agreement that the way we (humans) measure what we think of as "linear time" is actually by measuring Matter in Motion.<

Doesn't science measure atomic properties by their decay? Isn't decay an arbitrary measurement that exists whether or not we believe it? Conversely, atoms don't decay can you say the universe is not "aging"? If so, then you're saying atoms don't decay; there is no such thing as "radioactivity", right?

>If Matter is Mass/Time and Motion is Space/Time, some simple math & dimensional analysis will show that what we are really measuring when we track Matter in Motion (Matter/Motion) is: Mass/Space. Another term for this would be mass density.<

Would you go so far as to say that matter is "that magic shell that keeps whatever energies that are in an atom intact"? That if an atom was a bubble, the bubble skin would be matter and what's inside it is mass? If so, wouldn't matter be neutral, how else to account for conservation?

>So far, so good? We haven't gotten into any heavy math yet, but that will come in time (pardon the pun).<

I literally agree with you.

>In fact, if you are OK with this so far, I think the next post should begin to describe why the derivative of calculus is so important, and how we can apply the derivative to the definitions above to reach a deeper understanding of established physics... and maybe establish a few "extended" properties of existing physics that we may not have considered before.<

You're establishing the ground rules for your universe and next you'll be introducing calculus, supposedly to show how the things you just defined interact, right?

But what is the big picture? Ya know- first day of class the professor gives an overview of the subject matter he will cover; an introduction. What is your introduction? What is the theory you're putting forth from which all of these definitions apply. For example:

"With the right manipulation of elementary particles, you can travel time or space. So let's begin by defining time, space and the universe." Something like that. Where's that?

You're trying to make a point but provide no frame of reference to which all of this applies; no theory you want to establish. In effect, you're reporting as blind mice would with an elephant- each one would have his own observations but without a context they can never realize collaboratively it's an elephant. What's the big picture?
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

Here is the underlying premise of the true state of the universe, in my opinion.

The only rule of the universe is that it is always unchanging. In fact, the closer you get to defining something, the more it changes. This is an application of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which was the answer to E=MC2.

So what is stuff? Stuff, meaning anything in the universe, is arbitrary, relative to light. This includes our speed, which relative to another perspective can be light speed.

My opening statement is this: everything in the universe changes all the time, and everything in the universe is relative to light. Furthermore, we exist in a closed universe where matter and energy are conserved and energy is transferred. In short, everything science says about the state of the universe I absolutely agree with.

Getting into things like matter or energy or EM really don't matter, they're not quantifyable anyway. Rather they are somewhat predictable to the point where Heisenberg takes over. So any definition of anything is fine with me, I agree with the whole of science, I have no special definition of anything, I agree with whatever you want to call anything in the universe.
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

Can't wait to read this response....... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

Exactly the game I figured you were playing...
Considering you started with the pot shots, as long as you stop the pot shots I see no reason why I can't stop shooting back.
That would be nothing more than your opinion (the first part). And I see you really couldn't hold back and meet your commitment (the second part).
You're trying to make a point but provide no frame of reference to which all of this applies; no theory you want to establish. In effect, you're reporting as blind mice would with an elephant- each one would have his own observations but without a context they can never realize collaboratively it's an elephant. What's the big picture?
We haven't even gotten to the math yet, but you express it is an improper approach because it doesn't meet YOUR, personal standards... and at the same time you start with the pot shots. As I mentioned before, if I have to bend this to your, personal standards, there is no hope when we get to the math, because you will rant and rave just like you have here.

Nice try, Ren... but I could smell your attitude miles away and days ago. You're so brilliant, then perhaps you should be able to figure out my work all on your own. It really is fairly simple, I have given you the basis of it, and the only other hint you need is to treat Mass and Time as full 3-vectors. But that's all you'll get out of me, as I am not going to continue to play the game where you think you have all the answers, and even worse you put words in my mouth for things I am not claiming.

RMT
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

>Exactly the game I figured you were playing...<

I am not playing any games. I had questions that required responses. Where are the responses? If you want everyone to agree with the framework for your maths, we all have to agree with the framework first, right? If so, please answer the questions asked of you.

>Considering you started with the pot shots, as long as you stop the pot shots I see no reason why I can't stop shooting back.
>>That would be nothing more than your opinion (the first part). And I see you really couldn't hold back and meet your commitment (the second part).

You asked me to reserve pot shots for the other board, which I have done on that other board by illustrating exactly where the pot shots all came from: you.

>You're trying to make a point but provide no frame of reference to which all of this applies; no theory you want to establish. In effect, you're reporting as blind mice would with an elephant- each one would have his own observations but without a context they can never realize collaboratively it's an elephant. What's the big picture?<
>>We haven't even gotten to the math yet, but you express it is an improper approach because it doesn't meet YOUR, personal standards... and at the same time you start with the pot shots. As I mentioned before, if I have to bend this to your, personal standards, there is no hope when we get to the math, because you will rant and rave just like you have here.<<

Why don't you take the moral high ground and ignore my "pot shots" and stick to the issue at hand: answering my pretty simple questions so we can all agree on the framework upon which your maths are based.

If ranting and raving and pot shots are such an issue for you then rest easy, on this board I will only ask questions to further clarify your position. If you call that a pot-shot then it only asserts my statement from a few days ago that either A)I am too dumb to understand what you're saying or B) It's so complicated that you can't even begin to explain it, in which case it's totally useless information. So let's stick to the issue at hand, your answers to my specific questions. That way we can move on to your maths.

>Nice try, Ren... but I could smell your attitude miles away and days ago.<

Oh, I am sorry. Please get back to your answers to my questions, then we can move on to your maths.

>You're so brilliant, then perhaps you should be able to figure out my work all on your own.<

I did, and it's 42. Now what does that mean? Please tell.

>It really is fairly simple, I have given you the basis of it, and the only other hint you need is to treat Mass and Time as full 3-vectors.<

Thats it?!! The whole big introduction of principles led to this? This is your only point?!!

>But that's all you'll get out of me, as I am not going to continue to play the game where you think you have all the answers, and even worse you put words in my mouth for things I am not claiming.<

Yeah, it sucks saying something then someone rips you apart for it, doesn't it. Well I am sorry, you are right. I should not have attacked you, I apologize. I was wrong, I was out of line and I apologize. I will happily buy you a round of beers next time I'm in town.

Now can you answer the simple follow-up questions to your principles, or have I doomed humanity with my huberis?
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

Answers:
No problem, as long as you can illustrate how your obscure definitions of elements can be explained, otherwise no one will understand you.
Is there something obscure about Mass, Space, and Time? I'm not sure what fashion of illustration would be to your liking, but how about we deal with that if you have some gross objection to these three fundamental units, OK?
You write "attempts to define", does that mean it is defined or not? Not semantically, like on a subatomic scale but literally- does space exist and is it defined or not?
Space is a concept defined by human measurement of the relative positions of bodies to one another. Thus, the only place it is "defined" is in the human mind. I would hope you agree that there are no specific rectilinear, cylindrical, or spherical coordinate system markers that physically define space external to the human mind. Have I answered your questions? Did I even understand your question? Only you would know.
Does Einstein stating there is no fixed reference point of space mean there is no space, or that space is relative to light?
I believe he meant there is no SINGULAR metric known as space. Rather, there is SpaceTime... a combined metric. Perhaps you did not understand that when I said "fictional" in all of the above, I was referring to each as a singular metric that is fictional. I think you would agree that Heisenberg Uncertainty supports this in that once you try to measure a singular metric, your uncertainty in the other metrics increases.
When you write "relative to self" do you mean "a frame of reference a human mind can conceptualize" or "measurements that are comparable to the human mass"?
The former.
Underlying your definition of space is the line "[space] is not 100% accurate". Is this on the subatomic scale only, is it because all objects in the universe are in motion or is it because of the effect the observer has on space?
Neither. It is not accurate because Space is only one measure that comprises energy. You will no doubt agree there is no "conservation of space" law, nor "conservation of mass" law. Yet there are conservation laws for energy and momentum. That is because these are triplex measures of Massive SpaceTime. When you try to split them into component (singular) metrics, you introduce error...as told by Heisenberg.
What is confusing is that you're going out of your way to say repeatedly that space is not real, then you end by saying "it is a vector". Well if it's not real, how is it a vector, Victor?
A vector is a measurement that has magnitude and direction. A measurement is a representation of something... not the something itself. Clear?
So time does not exist at all, time is made up.
That is you saying this. I believe I have explained fairly clearly that what we perceive as Time is really an interaction of the metrics I have termed Matter in Motion. Can you name a clock that does not rely on Matter in Motion to measure Time?
Does this mean neutrons last forever?
I am not claiming that. You may be, but I am not.
So "motion" is this thing that's relative to space and time. Well if "space" and "time" don't exist, and motion is a derivitave of space and time, how can motion exist?
No. Stop putting words in my mouth. Motion is a combined metric of space and time. We know it as spacetime. We perceive Motion just like we perceive Mass and Space and Time. But does Motion really exist? IMO, it does not exist beyond our perception of it. Can we measure it? Yes, but I believe I drew the distinction between a measurement and its relationship to extant reality.
Does "Masstime" mean that if we could take the time away from mass it would cease to be mass?
No. As such, there is no need for me to answer the speculative questions that followed this.
You wrote "rest mass" but before you said "we know that Mass is anything but static. It is always changing". Can mass be at rest or not?
There are concepts called "rest mass" and "relativistic mass". I am describing these well accepted concepts of science.
Doesn't science measure atomic properties by their decay? Isn't decay an arbitrary measurement that exists whether or not we believe it?
I do believe atomic decay is measured as Matter in Motion.
Conversely, atoms don't decay can you say the universe is not "aging"? If so, then you're saying atoms don't decay; there is no such thing as "radioactivity", right?
These are your words, not mine.
Would you go so far as to say that matter is "that magic shell that keeps whatever energies that are in an atom intact"? That if an atom was a bubble, the bubble skin would be matter and what's inside it is mass?
No, and no.
If so, wouldn't matter be neutral, how else to account for conservation?
A combined, triplex metric that I call Massive SpaceTime. Otherwise known as Energy and Momentum. The units of each of these conserved measures are comprised of the 3 "fictional" metrics we think of as Mass, Space, and Time. Since these are the only conservation laws, these are the only "real" measures. The other measures obey no such law, thus their "reality" is debatable once you are outside the human mind.
You're establishing the ground rules for your universe and next you'll be introducing calculus, supposedly to show how the things you just defined interact, right?
Possibly.
But what is the big picture?
The "pictures" are nested, and fractal. You can pick whatever "big picture" you wish, but the progression goes:

Force
Energy
Information

See here:
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=35986&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

RMT
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

Most people hated Einstein's Relativity because he did not come from the classical background, yet he was 99% right and everyone else 99% wrong. A bunch of scientists got together and wrote a massive Tome called "100 Scientists who believe that Einstein is wrong". This delighted Einstein to no end, as he put it "Why 100? If I am wrong, only one will do".
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

>A combined, triplex metric that I call Massive SpaceTime. Otherwise known as Energy and Momentum. The units of each of these conserved measures are comprised of the 3 "fictional" metrics we think of as Mass, Space, and Time. Since these are the only conservation laws, these are the only "real" measures. The other measures obey no such law, thus their "reality" is debatable once you are outside the human mind.<

Okay. How do we prove this/how do we test it/is there a machine we can make from it and if so, how; what would it look like, what would it do, how would it work? What is the application of this?
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

>It really is fairly simple, I have given you the basis of it, and the only other hint you need is to treat Mass and Time as full 3-vectors.<

Thats it?!! The whole big introduction of principles led to this? This is your only point?!!
No, it is not "the only point". It is merely a foundation for expanding our current view of how "reality" may be structured at dimensional levels beyond which our senses can detect.

Perhaps if you dedicated more time to understanding the underlying aspects of what I am inferring, and less time just trying to make fun of me or prove me wrong, you might come upon some interesting thoughts. For example, have you ever wondered if there is an inherent structure to the universe that we cannot sense simply because we know our senses are limited? Is our approach to epistemology being limited (and therefore incomplete) because we insist upon using the "correspondence principle" as fact? IOW, we are quite aware that our senses, which are the basis for our subjective model of reality, are limited and incomplete. Yet we base our judgments of overall descriptions of physical reality upon these limited capabilities.

Don't you believe there just might be another approach which may not be hemmed-in by the limitations of our senses, but at the same time utilize what our senses deliver to us as a model for the bigger picture?

I do.
RMT
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

How do we prove this/how do we test it
Proof has been overtaken by falsifiability. IOW, one falsification is worth more than a million "proofs". I assume you do know that the concept of "proof" has an underlying problem called the initial bootstrap assumption. This is why falsification has become more important than proof. I am more interested in ensuring that what I propose/develop is formally falsifiable than I am in dedicating time to "proof". Reason being that there are plenty of people out there who may be able to falsify my work, and that is a more efficient use of external resources than dedicating my own resources to come up with a single form of proof (which could ultimately be overturned by one good, formal falsification).

When it comes to "test", this is an area where I actually agree with some of Hercules' views: Application of a theory in a trial-and-error environment is the best means to not only test, but to gather more information that relates to the application of the theory. Where it appears Hercules and I differ is that trial-and-error that is devoid of an underlying theory is like looking for the needle in the haystack by blindly sitting in different areas. There is nothing to guide the trial-and-error to improve the chances of success.

is there a machine we can make from it and if so, how; what would it look like, what would it do, how would it work?
Do you practice patience? You may accuse me of insulting you here, but I am being earnest in my question. I notice a tendency in you to wish to direct a process to achieve some outcome that YOU have in mind. I was taught that one element of patience is allowing a process to happen naturally, of its own accord, and resisting temptations to make it go where you want it to go. If nothing else, this approach conserves energy by allowing you to be a passive absorber of information, thus permitting more energy to be dedicated towards understanding rather than using it to try and force things to be your way.

That being said... If my theories can successfully show a fractal embedding of physical phenomenon (a progression of Force, to Energy, to Information), don't you believe that the potential for building "machines" based on this approach are many and varied? I am seeking to emulate the path of Einstein, in that he expanded upon the "seed" planted by Newton with F=ma. I am quite sure that if you were to ask the question of Einstein "what kind of machine can we build with it", he would have responded by saying that applications come AFTER you have a firm understanding of how your environment operates. Indeed, that is how history shows it happened. Einstein was not proposing "machines". Yet he knew that many applications would arise as a result of his work. You can call me all sorts of names for wishing to compare myself to Einstein, but in reality I am just trying to follow his model. It's not that I think I am in his league.

What is the application of this?
As I say above, they are many and they will come in time. Right now, it is my belief that the fractal structure we see everywhere in nature is trying to give us hints about what is "beyond" our current understanding. Would you agree that we cannot observe energy directly? Rather, we can observe its effects on the material things around us. That tells me that energy is a phenomenon associated with a higher level of dimensionality beyond which our senses can detect and report. In my career work doing closed loop control systems, I have always been mindful that there is some relationship between energy and information. This arises from the simple fact that we utilize information (in the form of measurements) as a means to minimize the energy transformations required to achieve some result. My research into this relationship between energy and information, along with other research into applications of fractal mathematics to control system design problems, has resulted in my own personal opinion that Force, Energy, and Information are related in a fractally-embedded manner. If this is true, and I can move forward in developing this theory (in a falsifiable manner) then would you not agree that by understanding how information is related to energy from a higher dimensional perspective, that it could open up new possibilities for any/all kinds of energy management solutions?

And if there is one thing related to the potential for time travel that I would hope we agree upon, it is that energy manipulation will be at the core of this technology.

RMT
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

So are you done with your maths?
Nope. Actually, as you can see, we haven't even really got to the maths. I've laid the foundation for them, and I just wanted to make sure you were still interested. If not, I was not going to continue. But there is a lot more I can explain and define. Later... after I get home from school this evening I'll try to post round 2.

RMT
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

We wait with breathless anticipation. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

>We wait with breathless anticipation.

>>Better than any maths which you have offered... which is none.

MEM- did you say you had a theory and the math to back it up and you're not sharing it with us?
 
Re: RainmanTime\'s Maths - For jmpet

Sorry. Ain't happening tonight... just got home and my girlfriend's here with other things on her agenda. Not that I don't like you guys, but what she's got in store for me is only about 1 google times more fun than this!
Wish me luck... I'm goin' in! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

RMT
 
Why Calculus Works - Matter, Motion, Tense

PART 2 - How Calculus Naturally Emerges From Our 3x3 Matrix Perceptions of MASS, SPACE, and TIME.

In PART 1 I laid out basic definitions and concepts that I believe not only are intuitive to the human mind, but are also in agreement with a primary system of physical measures that science agrees upon. IOW, we all agree that there are exactly three fundamental units that make up our human perception: MASS (objects), SPACE (3-D x-y-z field), and TIME (linear thermodynamic progression of entropy from Past, thru Present, into Future).

However, I also made it clear in PART 1 that I believed that the "static" or instantaneous measures of reality we know of as MASS, SPACE, and linear TIME are actually only approximations of our human perception. As physical humans, we like to think we can accurately measure either the MASS of some physical object, or its precise postion in physical SPACE, or its exact progression along a linear TIME line (world line). But the reality is all three of these measures are not "real." IOW, they are not unchanging, persistent elements. They are not STATIC and therefore their metrics (MASS, SPACE, and TIME) cannot be specified accurately if they are always changing.

By understanding and agreeing that the shared human perceptions of MASS, SPACE, and TIME are always changing, then we can make a very natural case for a set of physical metrics derived from our static perceptions of MASS, SPACE, and TIME. The mathematics of derivative calculus is the perfect (and natural) means to extend static MASSive SPACETIME into the dynamic metrical physical concepts that I have called MATTER, MOTION, and TENSE.

Since I think we all agree that if there is one constant in the universe, that it is change, then the mathematical concept of CHANGE (or DELTA) will be the basis from which we transform the static concepts of MASS, SPACE, and TIME into the dynamic concepts of MATTER, MOTION, and TENSE. The mathematical concept of CHANGE (or DELTA) is the foundation of the Derivative Calculus of static physical metrics. We can express these concepts in simple mathematical derivative concepts as follows:

Matter - Ma ~ Delta-Mass/Delta-Time = dM/dT... Matter is how Mass changes with Time.

Motion - Mo ~ Delta-Space/Delta-Time = dS/dT... Motion is how Space changes with Time.

Tense - Te ~ Delta-Mass/Delta-Space = dM/dS... Tense is how Mass changes with Space.

These are 3 higher-level metrics. By higher level, we mean that the metrics we call MASS, SPACE, and TIME are at the zero-derivative level. They are static metrics. And the metrics at the next higher level above them are MATTER, MOTION, and TENSE. These metrics represent the first (one) derivative level.

These 3 derivative metrics that have been described in this post are just the beginning of the math concepts associated with my Massive SpaceTime tensor matrix theories. In fact, this introduction to calculus derivatives still is only dealing with scalar maths. We have yet to describe how the 3-vectors are derived from these scalar maths, nor how the 3x3-tensors will eventually be described from that vector level of maths.

On top of all of this, I do not believe that anything I have described so far in this thread counters what we know about existing physics and math. Yet there will come a time in this description where I will suggest that we ought to extend existing math/science by treating MASS and TIME as full 3-vectors, just the way we treat SPACE as a full 3-vector.

Any problems, beefs, or questions? Understand the progressive math model so far?
RMT
 
Back
Top