Why Is Velocity So Important?

RainmanTime

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
We could start an entirely new thread that could explore another "deep mystery" that involves both scientific understanding and spiritual enlightenment.

One such topic would be to ask the question: "Why is VELOCITY such an important concept in physics, and will it be a key to further understanding Time?"

Why is VELOCITY-squared (specifically the VELOCITY of light) a central theme in Einsteinian physics?

Why is VELOCITY-squared (ANY velocity) a central theme in Newtonian physics as the concept we call KINETIC ENERGY?

Why is it that a body (ANY BODY) must achieve some specific "escape VELOCITY" before it can physically leave the influence of gravity of any celestial Body?

Why do we have Speed Limits (VELOCITY Limits) when we drive our cars, or fly our airplanes?

Why is VELOCITY-squared such an important quantity when it comes to generating aerodynamic Lift?

Why is VELOCITY-squared of electric charge (i.e. current) such an important quantity for generating electrical power?

Why is MOMENTUM (mass*VELOCITY) conserved, but VELOCITY all by itself is NOT conserved?

Why does a CHANGE in VELOCITY cause a resulting Force that moves some massive object through space?

What does VELOCITY have to do with traveling through (Space)Time?

Any ideas out there?

RMT
 
It occurred to me that that velocity is a balanced state between two opposing forces. Or just one of three possible states. A velocity increasing in value would be associated with an object gaining energy. A velocity decreasing in value could then be asssociated with an object losing energy. Of course don't hold me to that. Because the direction of time is something we tend to believe only goes one way. There are observations that suggest time may be reversed with gravitational acceleration.
 
Einstein,

In my 21+ years of practicing and teaching science and engineering, I have found that a great many people do not understand the link between velocity & SpaceTime, and how it links with our bodies of Matter, from which we perceive the universe around us. Yet the laws of physics clearly explain the importance of velocity; however, it is often the case that when one lives "immersed" in a certain truth, they take it for granted and do not look into it very deeply to understand it more completely.

Velocity is the Primary Metric (base measurement) for the manifold dimensionality that science calls Space-Time. When we define a SpaceTime dimensional manifold as a Background Field, then the vector we call Velocity (a metric of Space per unit Time) becomes the most fundamental measurement that we can define upon that Background Field. Together, what this Background Field and Primary Metric describe is the fundamental reality which we humans call MOTION. And MOTION is exactly, physically ONE HALF of the entire physical universe that we perceive and seek to know. The exact other physical half of the universe that we perceive and seek to know we call MATTER. Stated more succinctly we can simply say "Everything is MATTER in MOTION."

What we must come to grips with, as it pertains to this forum, is that: mankind will never and can never travel solely through TIME, all by itself. Science has (and continues) to show us that we can only realistically speak of traveling through the integrated manifold we call SpaceTime. And since Velocity is the PM of SpaceTime, we must come to a much more deep understanding of how Velocity's governance of things such as Momentum and Energy can aid us in developing more advanced means to travel through SpaceTime (which our bodies of MATTER are already doing, BTW).

As physical beings comprised of MATTER, we humans are meant to be in MOTION. In fact, MOTION (at various fractal levels of our body and mind) is what helps us to define ourselves as being ALIVE! We might even call the human organism a Prime Mover. And as Prime Movers we use and rely upon a certain Primary Metric to Create change in the universe around us.

If we look through our human history, we can see that as we have evolved better ways to manage and control our VELOCITY VECTORS, we have advanced in our aquisition of Information. Here we again see the link between Momentum (Force), Energy, and Information that I have pointed to in other threas. And we see that our most basic human tool we can use to achieve advances in Momentum, Energy, and Information is VELOCITY VECTOR management.

This ain't no New Age BS... this is Science, through and through.
RMT
 
Time has direction and magnitude, so that sort of makes it a velocity,too, doesn't it? This was pointed out by Charles Howard Hinton, the son-in-law of George Boole.

But what is this velocity (he asked innocently)? I believe that it is the 'observed' speed of light, or c. So elapsed time would be ct.

Suppose one had two speedboats traveling across a lake side-by-side, and one of them diverted its course by means of a rudder at angle theta [gee, I wish I had a pencil] while retaining its speed (actually it would be a velocity). The observer on the other boat would see the diverted boat move away from it at a constant rate. Relative velocity is the component that we see. The velocity of each boat remains the same, but the angle of divergence in direction can create a relative (observed) motion.

Light has to travel faster than c to reach our eye. I think it has a speed of root2c. This requires that emitted light leaves our vicinity at an angle of 45 degrees and reaches us at an angle of 45 degrees.

While this may be no more than a curiosity, if one 'plugs' the value of root2c for v in the equation E=1/2mv^2 one obtains E=mc^2. (?). Packerbacker
 
Hello again, PB!
Time has direction and magnitude, so that sort of makes it a velocity,too, doesn't it? This was pointed out by Charles Howard Hinton, the son-in-law of George Boole.
Click to expand...
Yes, well it makes it "sort of" a velocity, you are correct. But to be even more correct, what you have just described is a VECTOR (magnitude & direction). And what you seem to be saying is something I have been saying on this forum (via the explanation of my Massive SpaceTime theory) for quite awhile. Time is indeed a vector. But velocity is simply one, specific instantiation of a vector. Velocity involves Space per unit Time, as a vector quantity. If you wish to analyze Time as a dependent variable, which is also a vector, you would have to describe it as Mass per unit Space. At least this is what my scientific and mathematical research has demonstrated to me.
I believe that it is the 'observed' speed of light, or c. So elapsed time would be ct.
Click to expand...
Once again you are making reference to something I have described in this forum.... namely, that we humans "set our arrow of time" based on the speed of light, which is the highest FREQUENCY field effect that our human senses can directly perceive. My theory states that the "Arrow of Time" is variable, and can move in a (+) or a (-) direction depending upon which relative measure you use as a "zero calibration" reference. As humans, who can readily perceive things happening at the speed of light, this value (c) becomes the "zero calibration" reference for our minds.
Suppose one had two speedboats traveling across a lake side-by-side, and one of them diverted its course by means of a rudder at angle theta [gee, I wish I had a pencil] while retaining its speed (actually it would be a velocity). The observer on the other boat would see the diverted boat move away from it at a constant rate. Relative velocity is the component that we see. The velocity of each boat remains the same, but the angle of divergence in direction can create a relative (observed) motion.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah.... you're right on, dude. I think I see what you are implying and where you are going.
Light has to travel faster than c to reach our eye. I think it has a speed of root2c. This requires that emitted light leaves our vicinity at an angle of 45 degrees and reaches us at an angle of 45 degrees.
Click to expand...
I believe what you are describing here is the classical "event cone" of Minkowski SpaceTime....which, by definition, makes an angle of 45 degrees with respect to both the "Space" and "Time" coordinate axes.
While this may be no more than a curiosity, if one 'plugs' the value of root2c for v in the equation E=1/2mv^2 one obtains E=mc^2. (?).
Click to expand...
Dude, you are one smart cookie! You've realized a VERY important truth which also has a perfect explanation in the mathematical world of dynamical systems. Could I bother to ask you if you understand what I mean when I use the terms "solving for the roots of a characteristic equation of a dynamical system"? Does that mean something specific to you?

I don't mean to be cryptic, but there is a purpose to my question.

RMT
 
I'm not a mathematician. The approach I have is conceptual, but it needs mathematical treatment.

In the old days the approach would have been called Natural Philosophy, I suppose. What I put out are not really thoughts so much as conceptual parts of a fairly complete system. Current thought, and that includes most of science, is still locked into a 3+1 perspective in which the physical universe is the one reality and there is only one dimension of time. I've spoken here about gauge pulses traveling through a bubblefield which has no overall dimensionality, but each bubble is a 4-d vibration in itself and each has its own time. The gauge pulses are traveling radially (normally) but some of them have clumped together to form what we know as matter. The direction of the gauge pulses is their dimension of time, but it is not the time we measure with a clock which is one phase of a dimensional spin through four universes. This is all quite clear in my mind's eye. The space for replies seems to be limited. Let me squeeze this opinion in: Scattered around on this planet are the remnants of a well developed science that has not been known for the last 10k years. Among these remnants are the pyramid form,the Hindu gods, and the T'ai chi T'u. PB
 
Hi PB,
While this may be no more than a curiosity, if one 'plugs' the value of root2c for v in the equation E=1/2mv^2 one obtains E=mc^2. (?).
Click to expand...
It seems I did not look closely at what you said here... I believe you have a math error. If you do as you say (set v=SQRT(2c)) and plug it into the potential energy equation, you actually end up with E = mc, because the squaring cancels out the SQRT of 2c, leaving you with only 2c and not 2c^2.

Still, I think you have some interesting ideas, and yes I agree they would be bolstered with an in-depth math treatment.

The question I asked was not so much about mathematics, but rather how we solve for the stability parameters of any physical system. A system's frequency domain transfer function is of the form:

T(s) = G(s)/H(s) {where "s" is the frequency parameter}

The equation for H(s) is commonly called the Characteristic Equation (CE) for the system. By setting H(s) = 0 and solving for the roots of this equation we identify the "poles" of the natural frequency response of the subject system. Real poles indicate non-oscillatory responses and complex poles indicate osciallatory responses of the system. This mathematics treatment is applicable to mechanical, electrical, and chemical systems and it is my belief that it also is applicable to defining "stability parameters" with respect to Energy and how it forms Matter within SpaceTime. IOW, we perceive Matter as a stable entity, but in reality it has "poles" that can be both oscillatory and non-oscillatory.

RMT
 
Greetings, RMT

Re the equation: If SQRT2(c) is greater than c, then [SQRT2(c)]^2 must be greater than c^2.

As far as the other math, let's hold off on that for awhile. What we know as matter is an illusion, and what we measure as time is epiphenomenal. I've spent many years developing the approach I'm trying to communicate, and sometime during that process I realized that that I simply could not be making this stuff up -- it exists in 'neverland' as a coherent body of knowledge, and due to the fact that it was my dharma to pursue it and the fact that I had somewhat accidentally stumbled on a valid datum of it--I was downloading it a byte at a time.I am not going to be able to finish developing it. But--everyone is unconsciously hooked into this knowledge. They are stymied by the limitations of the conceptual structure they have been trained in,though. There are,in the world, remnants, in symbolic terms, of this knowledge. One of the key symbols is the yin-yang symbol, which you feel an affinity for.That represents the monad or the One Element. When I get it assembled
I'm going to post it above. You will find it interesting. PB(I live 50 miles N. of Green Bay)
 
Hi PB,

Re the equation: If SQRT2(c) is greater than c, then [SQRT2(c)]^2 must be greater than c^2.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how this applies to my comment. Unless you mean something specific by "SQRT2(c)" that I am not understanding. Is "SQRT2" a different function than "SQRT"? Or do you mean "SQRT(2c)"?

I believe my algebra is correct in my previous post:

Allow v = SQRT(2*c)
Substitute this "v" into K.E. = 0.5*m*v^2
K.E. = 0.5*m*(SQRT(2*c))^2
K.E. = 0.5*m*2*c = m*c

RMT
 
Greetings again RMT. What I was trying to express is is the diagonal of a right angle triangle in which one leg (v) is relative velocity at the observed speed of light, and the other leg is the 'speed' of time, which is also c. So the expression would be [(SQRT 2)(c)]^2 (?)

The really interesting stuff starts when I communicate enough of the basics to start discussing the cause of mass, gravity, some very interesting geophysical theories, and what is currently happening to the planet and the solar system as it travels through gauge variable space.PB
 
Hi PB,
What I was trying to express is is the diagonal of a right angle triangle in which one leg (v) is relative velocity at the observed speed of light, and the other leg is the 'speed' of time, which is also c. So the expression would be [(SQRT 2)(c)]^2 (?)
Click to expand...
Ahhh, OK I think I am following a bit better now. So you are assuming a 45 degree right triangle then. I'd like to know more about how you align this geometric relationship to physical parameters. IOW, what is the physical significance of one leg being "c" and the other leg also being "c"?

Incidentally, in the future it might be better to describe your term as "c*SQRT(2)". Using this format would have avoided my misunderstanding from the get-go. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Just a suggestion.
RMT
 
Greetings,RMT:

The equation in question involved E, which in this case is EMR. c*SQRT 2 is the propagation speed of light through subspace (subspace is a quasi-Euclidean space-time) It is equivalent to the Great Void or Franklin Merrell-Wolff's Great Space. You could call it a vibrating field of consciousness from one perspective.

This field quanticizes all waves passing through it, producing gauge pulses, wavelets that slightly change the vibrational rate of subspace as they pass through it.It is the DIRECTION of the gauge pulses that create their time. Our materiality is composed of vast numbers of these gauge pulses which travel on approximately parallel paths making it seem as if there is a common dimension of time. BUT--this is not what we measure as time.

Back to the old standby, the pyramid model which shows physical relationships. The increase in size of the pyramid from top to bottom symbolizes the gauge expansion of the gauge pulses (they are expanding at the speed of light)The four sides symbolize the four phase states that one can create from four dimensions ABC+D,BCD+A,ACD+B,ABD+C (each has a different dimension of time). The gauge pulse spins dimensionally through all four phase states, so the compound motion would be like a conical helix, actually.Remember, dimensions of space are changing into dimensions of time and back.
The pyramid model appears in the Upanishads, where the four sides represent the physical, astral mental and etheric(?) planes. Each of these are 3+1 universes in their own right, and can contain their own matter which is out-of-phase with ours.Because of the dimensional spin, the gauge pulse is in our phase state every quarter of a cycle. So the path down a face of the pyramid is what we measure with a clock: it is discontinuous, and I like to call it Bergsonian time. The other three universes, or planes, are multiplexed between instants of our clock time.

Now, the corner edges of the pyramid symbolize the path of electromagnetic radiation, which passes in a region between universes.The 45 degree angle comes in with the relationship of the corners (or diagonals) to the sides.

(I just edited out some material about mass and anti-gravity). The discussion got sidetracked by the math thing.

With the analogy of the two speed boats, I was trying to point out that the gauge pulse, the little blip (with trillions of its neighbors) always travels radially in the expansion of the universe (which is a variable gauge expansion rather than the invariant gauge expansion of current physics, and always travels at the observed speed of light.What we know as relative velocity is simply an angular divergence of paths. The angle of divergence is proportional to relative velocity. Since the direction of the gauge pulses is always radial at the observed speed of light (there's the answer to the question you originally asked--its a velocity that creates the universe).

But isn't this Newton's First Law of Motion? Haven't we provided a metaphysical foundation for that law? Are we lacking in chutzpah?

If there is a constant acceleration, the angle spoken of above has a rotational velocity.

P.S.: I lived in L.A. during the sixties, up near Vermont Ave. and Santa Monica Blvd.(also in the Valley, also in Glendale). I hear the heat wave is abating, but it's hot here too. PB
 
PB,

There are some interesting thoughts here, and I will get to them when the Time feels right (I always work by motivation, which is why some may think I have ignored or lost interest in a particular thread...actually, I wait until motivation drives me to respond).
You could call it a vibrating field of consciousness from one perspective.
Click to expand...
This mention of vibration motivates me to share something about the original topic of this thread that many people either ignore, or they simply do not understand.

Most people realize that Velocity is a vector quantity, but they do not often investigate it to come to an understanding that Velocity can be expressed more completely as a Rank 3 tensor. The source of this incompleteness stems from the fact that people artificially separate TRANSLATIONAL velocity (V-x, V-y, V-z) from ROTATIONAL velocity (Omega-x, Omega-y, Omega-z). Yet, both of these "modes of motion" of a body are inherently velocities and they should be treated in an integrated manner.

But wait... there is another aspect of velocity incompleteness we need to address before we can define a Rank 3 tensor form of velocity. TRANSLATION and ROTATION are relative EXTERNAL measures of motion for some body of mass (M). In dynamics we call the set of translation and rotation metrics the "state vector" of the body (M). We treat the body (M) as a "point mass" and in doing so we are completely ignoring that this body also has INTERNAL measures of motion which are also representative velocities... and these are related to the molecular motions and vibrations of the distributed mass that makes up (M). Clearly, if we want a FULL picture of Velocity, we cannot treat the body (M) as a point-mass any longer, and we must account for the internal measures of motion. This will also complete our "story" of why Velocity is a Rank 3 tensor.

BTW: Temperature is a concept which is actually an average measure of the internal motions of a body... so we do not have to "throw away" the concept of Temperature, but rather expand it and unify it with the external velocity measures of Rotation and Translation.

What we can now quantify is the "3-D" nature of the TOTAL velocity of any body (M). The TOTAL VELOCITY TENSOR of some body (M) can be expressed in three, orthogonal, vector quantities:

TRANSLATION - (V-x, V-y, V-z)
The Active element of velocity which causes a displacement of one body (M1) with respect to another body (M2).
ROTATION - (Omega-x, Omega-y, Omega-z)
The Neutral element of velocity which causes a change in attitude of one body (M1) with respect to another body (M2)
VIBRATION - (Nu-x, Nu-y, Nu-z)
The Passive element of velocity which causes a change in temperature (and accompanying radiation effects) of one body (M1) with respect to another body (M2).

Here we now have an INTEGRATED, "complete" picture of all the forms of velocity that any body (M) can exhibit. And this last piece (VIBRATION) is KEY to being able to integrate the concepts of radiation (specifically, E/M radiation) from one body to another.

This is another big "piece" to my theoretical goals of defining and describing a Tensor-based model of the Integrated Matrix of Massive SpaceTime.


RMT
 
Back
Top