RainmanTime Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 I have done a lot of research into the relationships between information and energy over the past 10+ years, and I am now confident that the relationship between these two metrics is becoming clearer to our scientific community. There is plenty of evidence, as well as an emerging understanding, that information is a higher-level metric that subsumes and contains the metric we know of as physical energy. Certainly it is information that is the central question to the dual wave/particle nature of light, where the information is represented by a measurement we make that determines if we perceive light as a wave or particle. Information has also been the key factor in mankind's evolutionary control over energy. When we learned to use information (feedback) about a physical process in a closed-loop manner, we made great advances in our ability to build systems that transform and utilize energy in highly efficient manners. The majority of the 20th century was dedicated to mankind's development of this control over energy. Only towards the end of the 20th century, and here in the 21st century are we evolving beyond energy to understand just how information subsumes physical energy. We live in the information age, and while our ability to exchange information at ever increasing rates has been an amazing development, when we finally come to an understanding of what information really is with respect to the physical laws of the universe, we will enter a new phase of accelerated development.... one which will no doubt, in my opinion, lead to "time travel". There has been another indication that information subsumes energy that has been with us for quite awhile now. Many claim there is no relationship between what Claude Shannon defined as "information entropy" and the more familiar form of entropy defined by physics as "thermodynamic entropy". Those who claim there is no link between the two state so because they see that the numerical values of information entropy are so much larger than thermodynamic entropy. But to me, that is exactly part of the evidence that information is a higher level metric than physical energy: Thermodynamic entropy defines the arrow of linear Time as we perceive it via physical energy in our universe of physical perception. This form of entropy governs what is possible and/or probable with respect to manifestation of physical energy events in our universe of Massive SpaceTime. Information entropy defines a much more broad version of Time which is clearly non-linear. Many more things are possible, and even more probable, in the domain of information than the domain of physical energy. Thus the reason that information entropy is numerically larger than the thermodynamic entropy for any physical process. Think about it this way: We can tell stories (which are based in information) about things that have little to no possibility of occurring in physical reality. This is a byproduct of information entropy being larger than thermodynamic entropy. I'd be happy if anyone were able to falsify my theories in this regard, but so far my development of the tensor math to support this view is showing solid correlation with what we know about the sciences of measurement and Heisenberg Uncertainty. In my last reply to Darby in the Fractal Time thread I proposed an equation that described precisely how information subsumes physical energy. The explanation goes like this: Newton told us: F = m*a ->>> Force = Mass times Acceleration (2nd derivative of Length/Position) Einstein subsumed Newton's Force and told us: E = m*c^2 ->>> Energy = Mass times Velocity-squared (1st derivative of Length/Position) Hudson now claims: I = m*s^3 ->>> Information = Mass times Position-cubed (0th derivative of Length/Position) As a simple explanation that validates one aspect of this equation: The INFORMATION that you collect through measurements made by your human senses is directly proportional to WHERE YOU ARE (your position) in the universe of relative space (s^3). Example: If you are in a forest and you see and hear a tree fall, you have collected specific information about that event because you were in the vicinity of that tree when it fell. If you are somewhere in the middle of the city when that tree falls in the forest, you do not have access to any information about whether the tree fell or not. IOW... position matters with respect to information. Discussion anyone? RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 3, 2005 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 Honestly, If someone can falsify the scalar equations I have reviewed and suggested in my theory, I would be happy to see them try. If someone can falsify them, then I would know to move on to another theory, but so far I think I have a scientific and mathematical theory to describe Information as a metric over and above Energy. RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

creedo299 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 The question you should ask yourself, is if RMT or someone close to him, had used a time level assumer, in order to get certain information, so that they would have a certain standing, would some of these aspects be uncontrollable? It was broadcast publicly, that the Star Wars era story, was in fact a channeled relayed series of past events. The Jedi and the Empire did exist, however some of the storyline is embellished for entertainment purposes. The problem is that of the Sith. In reality, if you have not figured it out by now, Emporer Palpatine, is indeed Lord Vader's father, his real one. I feel in the second generation, that Luke Sklywalker was protected in birth, by the amnion of his mother. This is why he was not vicious, like Anakin Skywaker. Later, somehow, Lord Vader grew to love his son from a distance, but no'one ever knew this. Remember, Anakin Skywalker, was a master not only robotacist, but an andrologist as well. He knew the off planet web and used this knowledge in order to build the cyborg relations droid, long ago. He also knew Luke's almost every move and could have had him many times over. Its funny, before I knew most of this, I had studies the Black Mamba, which is the black African Cobra. This snake is manageable most of the year round, albeit for the exception of spring, at which the causticity of its hormone titer, irritates the nature of its nervous system and the snake become very violent. The Sith, in parody, very closely resembles the hormone structure of the Black Mamba. The more the Sith fights, the better it becomes at fighting, within its own rage, which is a lust for what it does best. Its funny that I knew about this, long before I knew the nature of the Siths. This finding is Pandora's box. For when you open the box, your own surprise is, that what you behold, you also become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

CAT Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Re: Just as Creeds, I still wonder about you? a little nonsense here and there relished by the wisest manâ€¦ Ray, Newton and Einstein for the most part were reasonably religious menâ€¦ CAT now claims: Genesis 1:16. And God made two great lights; the large light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night; and he made the stars. The word for large light or the greater light is "hama'or hagadol" (literally, the light the great) ma'or (mem alef vav resh) is sometimes translated as sun but it is literally light or luminary. ma. is mass (mem alef) or (vav resh) -- means light or fire subtract 1, and ma'or becomes ma'har or mee'her (vav -1 = hey) mee-her is speed then apply the old Hebrew rule that says letters of the same sound are equal to each other, then reversing the word..... rum equals "raised" Finally, substitute letters of the same sound re-ba equals squared obtaining mass times the speed of light, raised to the square for the meaning of ma'or. Just as Einstein arrived at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

newbie_0 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I guess my question is what is S exactly? x*y*z = volume, but is it in nano meters? I guess the unit would have to be quite small for the value of I to be always larger than E. Does S have a limit as well, it takes infinitly more information as volume approaches infinity. If so can it apply to ALL space in our universe to tell us the maximum physical size/mass the universe can have? Does mass also increase as space approaces infinity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 Hi Newbie, I guess my question is what is S exactly? x*y*z = volume, but is it in nano meters? Sorry about that...forgot to define my terms. In physics and engineering, when referring to length, "s" is often used as the symbol for arc length. One could also say it refers to "Space" in general, but you are correct that it is a 3-D metric. I guess the unit would have to be quite small for the value of I to be always larger than E. The unit does not have to change, but the resolution to which you know position is certainly an important metric! Does S have a limit as well, it takes infinitly more information as volume approaches infinity. The Planck length serves this limit quite well... and indeed, this defined "minimum length" is already pertinent when it comes to information and quantum theory. If so can it apply to ALL space in our universe to tell us the maximum physical size/mass the universe can have? I don't think the Planck length would pertain to that. It is primarily the minimum size limit beyond which we cannot (as yet) "know anything" (i.e. collect information). Does mass also increase as space approaces infinity? I think the opposite is true. What I mean by this is that as space increases, the density of mass lessens. IOW, mass becomes more diffuse in the larger volume. That is what we observe in our universe with respect to galaxies receding from one another.RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

newbie_0 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I think the opposite is true. What I mean by this is that as space increases, the density of mass lessens. IOW, mass becomes more diffuse in the larger volume. That is what we observe in our universe with respect to galaxies receding from one another. This is very interesting. I've already made a t-shirt =) http://www.cafepress.com/rejoicetshirts.33189335 These posts have made me spend a lot of time on wikipedia, and uhh.. sometimes dictionary.com hehe Plank length = (plank's constant * gravitational constant / c^3) ^ (1/2) If we can ever go beyond plank length the value of I will get larger. So I guess my next question is it ok for I to change for the same system if the units are smaller? Should there not be a fixed size for for type of thing? Or is it close enough, planks constant works over a good enough range of temperature; if we can measure something smaller the change in I would be insignifigant? wikipedia says one method of computing arc length = integral of b->a of sqrt(1+(f'(x)^2)*dx) So does that mean f(x) is pretty much any equation at all that will plot an arc? I'm curious as to why "arc length" is used instead of simple (x*y*v) Is this so you can describe basically any area of space instead of just a cube? I'm also confused on why s is the "length", if s is volume why is refered to as a length (i'm used to length being 1 dimension) BTW, are you Hudson? 'cause I couldn't find him on wikipedia yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

creedo299 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Re, RMT I think your thinking within this thread, is flawed. The why of this, is that your after something. The something you after, is status, not truth. The truth is, that the ancient wizards poll, was one of the contributing factors, of a good level of science today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 I've already made a t-shirt =) Cool. I'm sure you'll get lots of questions while wearing it. So I guess my next question is it ok for I to change for the same system if the units are smaller? Should there not be a fixed size for for type of thing? I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but let me take a stab at it. If you mean the units of length go from micrometers to nanometers, then this has to be (and is) reflected in the numerical value of the total information. This is true for all consistent unit systems. So the equation is saying that for a given volume, containing a given mass, no matter what scale of units you use, the total information inherent in that volume of mass remains constant. if we can measure something smaller the change in I would be insignifigant? No, because the information is not changing. That is what the equation is saying. Same thing goes for Einstein's E=mc^2. Just because you may change the units of measure for "c" from kilometers per hour to millimeters per second has no impact on the total energy. (But be careful, most freshman engineering students have their biggest problem in keeping units consistent... so if you change the units on "c", then the units will necessarily have to change on "E", along with the numerical value). So does that mean f(x) is pretty much any equation at all that will plot an arc? Yes, that is any generalized function of position (x). And f'(x) is the derivative of f(x) with respect to x. I'm curious as to why "arc length" is used instead of simple (x*y*v) Is this so you can describe basically any area of space instead of just a cube? Yep. Using arc length is more generalized as it is not restricted to the "straight line" length. The length can take on any form twisting through 3 dimensions. I'm also confused on why s is the "length", if s is volume why is refered to as a length (i'm used to length being 1 dimension) s is length. But s^3 is volume. For example you might measure an arc length of 2 inches. If you use that arc length to describe a volume bounded by that arc length, you must raise it to the third power, which gives you inches^3. BTW, are you Hudson? 'cause I couldn't find him on wikipedia yet. Yep, Ray Hudson is my real name. I'm not surprised you haven't found me on wiki. I'm really just an amateur dabbler in theoretical physics. But my work in aerospace control systems has highlighted to me just how we use information as a means to control energy. That is what lead me to the conclusion that information is a concept that subsumes the concept of energy. (i.e. information can and does control energy expenditures.) This is what a closed-loop control system does. It uses information about the physical state of something to control how that system uses energy.RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 Creeds, I think your thinking within this thread, is flawed. I'd prefer you to prove it mathematically, not emotionally. The something you after, is status, not truth. Baloney. If I wanted that I would have gone into politics or show biz.Ya know Creeds, for all the time I have been here never.... not ONCE have you either agreed with me, or acquiesed that something I have stated is true. I call that nothing more than an antagonist. And yet, you can clearly find posts where I saw you were posting something of value, commended you on it, and asked you to engage further (which you never did). If you want to get emotional in our judgments, I could just as easily claim that you are jealous of my working in a business that you would like to work in (your everlasting wishes to redesign the shuttle tiles). And so whenever I state something that might be true, but that you cannot falsify with a scientific approach, you resort to personal/emotional "reasons" for why I must be wrong. The truth is, that the ancient wizards poll, was one of the contributing factors, of a good level of science today. Let's see their math... and then better and bigger minds than I can evaluate just how close to truth (experimental evidence) they are! RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

newbie_0 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Thanks so much for answering my questions, I have more =) so if you change the units on "c", then the units will necessarily have to change on "E", along with the numerical value. Ahh ok, I shouldve know that. What about this case: E=1 * (34596000000) (mass 1 * c^2) I=1 * (1000) (mass 1 * very small volume with arc lengh 10) I'm assuming that subsuming you need I to bigger than E? If so how is s restricted to at least ~3258.43 so it will always be larger than E? Is there where plank length applies? Yep. Using arc length is more generalized as it is not restricted to the "straight line" length. The length can take on any form twisting through 3 dimensions. It's not length 1 * length 2 * length 3, can you still represent any space using only one value for arc length? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

newbie_0 Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 bump 'cause i still wanna know... =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 Hi Newbie, Sorry I didn't get back to you: What about this case: E=1 * (34596000000) (mass 1 * c^2) I=1 * (1000) (mass 1 * very small volume with arc lengh 10) I'm assuming that subsuming you need I to bigger than E? If so how is s restricted to at least ~3258.43 so it will always be larger than E? Is there where plank length applies? I don't understand your use of numbers in your equations, and you have not used explicit units to help me understand what the numbers are measures of. I might need a better description of what you are asking. But here are some thoughts that might apply:It's not so much "needing" I to be bigger than E as it is that this is what my theory is claiming to be true. Einstein's equation tells you how much energy is inherent in a given mass. When that mass is accelerated to the speed of light, it becomes "raw" energy. The "c^2" term can be thought of as the surface area of a bubble which is expanding at the speed of light. What my "I" equation is trying to relate could be described as this: For any given mass (m), which occupies any given space (s^3), there is a finite amount of Information associated with it. It is even possible that this total amount of information relates to all the possible quantum states of that mass/volume. But no matter which of these many quantum states the mass takes on, it can only express itself as energy in one quantum state at a time. By the very nature of this hierarchy between the two, there would have to be more information (quantum states) than there is energy associated with any one quantum state. Make sense? And again I would point to my example to show how information subsumes (i.e. contains AND controls energy): Say you have some mechanical system that operates in an open-loop fashion, and it is unstable (oscillatory). As this system osciallates back and forth it expends a great deal of energy. Now, using nothing more than measurements (information), we can close a feedback loop and thus exert control over how much energy is expended. Since information is required to control energy expenditure, then we say that it subsumes energy. Did that help? It's not length 1 * length 2 * length 3, can you still represent any space using only one value for arc length? I think you might be getting hung up with how science and math projects measurements into higher dimensions. That is all that is going on here. Any single, 1-dimensional measure of length is projected into a two dimensional surface by squaring it, and projected into a three dimensional volume by cubing it. Use the relativity equation as an example: "c" is understood to be a measure of velocity, which is one dimensional. We project that into the surface area of a bubble traveling at light speed by squaring it. Thus "c^2" desvcribes the surface area of a bubble of energy that is expanding at the speed of light. Physicist Max Tegmark has coined the term "Hubble Bubble" for this concept.RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

newbie_0 Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 you have not used explicit units Ahh units units.... K let me try to add a bit of form to that, sorry. Basically I want to know how I > E will always be true. By the very nature of this hierarchy between the two, there would have to be more information (quantum states) than there is energy associated with any one quantum state. Make sense? I understand that as I > E at all times, I don't know if I should be assuming that about subsumption.. hehe, but here is my question: Consider a system where the only thing know is it consists of a mass of 1kg and volume of the system is 10 (units I'm not sure about, lets call them s-units). let c = speed of light in miles/sec 186000 ( i dont know if miles/sec is ok...?, c^2 = 34596000000) let s = 10 s-units E=mc^2 I=ms^3 E=1kg * (34596000000miles/sec) I=1kg * (1000 s-unit's) In this system I < E. Now, there is probably no 1kg form of matter that will fit inside a volume of 10 s-units but, is there a _mathematical_ restriction that always makes s^3 > c^2 true? Any single, 1-dimensional measure of length is projected into a two dimensional surface by squaring it, and projected into a three dimensional volume by cubing it. Use the relativity equation as an example: "c" is understood to be a measure of velocity, which is one dimensional. I still don't understand what "s" is supposed to represent.. velocity has two units, distance over time. In highschool they taught me a little trick with this triangle: D V T Cover any letter and the two that remain will show you how to find the value of what you covered. so a velocity v is d over T etc... Does this "s" have a similar triangle? edit: oh wait, is s just the volume of the hubble bubble? edit again: no wait thats c^3 i guess lol... /spins in circles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 Hi Newbie, OK, now I see where you are going... but be prepared, because I am going to throw another curve at you. Actually, I have been waiting for you to get to this point so I could make my comment about "mass". But first we really need to work on unit consistency! Consider a system where the only thing know is it consists of a mass of 1kg and volume of the system is 10 (units I'm not sure about, lets call them s-units). Let's get clear: "s" is a unit of LENGTH, or DISTANCE. You are aware, I believe, that there are 3 fundamental units of measure: Mass, Length (Space), and Time, right? So we can even drop "arc" because it is just a descriptor that lets us know that the length "s" is not necessarily a straight line. Yet, it is a LENGTH nonetheless. let c = speed of light in miles/sec 186000 ( i dont know if miles/sec is ok...?, c^2 = 34596000000) let s = 10 s-units OK, to ensure we have consistent units, then we would say that "s" would be 10 miles (in order for the miles/sec in the E equation to be consistent with the miles in the I equation). Now, do you realize that s^3 will then be = 1000 miles^3 (cubic miles)? If so, then at least we have consistent units, and we can move on to your "real" issue: In this system I < E. Now, there is probably no 1kg form of matter that will fit inside a volume of 10 s-units but, is there a _mathematical_ restriction that always makes s^3 > c^2 true? OK, it is at this point that we must realize that the mass (m) is NOT the same measure in the 3 equations (F=ma, E=mc^2, and I=ms^3). We already know about relativistic effects on mass as it accelerates from the domain of Newton (F=ma) to the domain of Einstein (E=mc^2). IOW, the mass we are speaking of in these equations is the relativistic mass, and this changes with respect to your relative frame of reference.So we've finally arrived to the "really strange" part of my theory. It is my claim that yet another change to our concept of mass is in order, similar to the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass that was introduced by relativity. I am claiming that the change that needs to be understood is that mass is actually a full-blown tensor metric, just as is space and velocity (i.e. spacetime). If you were to examine the full-blown tensor mathematics of my simplistic "I=ms^3" equation, we would actually be describing "mass" as a 3x3 matrix, whose eigenvalues correspond with our conventional notion of mass. I still don't understand what "s" is supposed to represent.. s is a length. s^2 is a surface. s^3 is a volume. Does this "s" have a similar triangle? No, because unlike velocity, "s" is simply a measure of length, whereas velocity is a space-time metric.There are many different ways you can think about this equation I have proposed to convince yourself that it could very well be real: 1) If you re-arrange the equation a little bit to read "I/s^3 = m" this would essentially be saying that this larger version of mass that I am talking about (mass as a vector) is actually a measure of INFORMATION DENSITY (Information per unit volume). 2) But a more telling way to think about my proposal relates to how our society has achieved higher levels of information. We all know that the total amount of information available to mankind is always increasing. That is because of the devices and outlets we have created (out of mass) that are for the express purpose of "capturing" (measuring) events and turning them into information. For example, the explosion of mass media and the internet has created a gigantic sea of information that is constantly being delivered to observers around the world. It was by deploying more and more elements of specialized forms of mass (computers, television cameras, satellite broadcast transceivers), over wider and wider volumes of space, that we were able to achieve these fantastic levels of information availability. Essentially, the information revolution that we have lived through is empircal evidence for the truthfulness of my proposed equation. Would you agree? RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 15, 2005 Author Share Posted October 15, 2005 Bumped this thread in order to point something out to the more astute analysts of math/science equations: If you perform a dimensional analysis upon the familiar Newtonian and Einsteinien equations for force and energy, you will see that they are dependent upon TIME. 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. Could that mean something? RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Einstein Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 RMT 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. I believe I have mentioned that mass could be described as a state where time flow is zero. But to date no one has even taken a stab at what mass really is. I have proposed that mass is a balanced state between an electric and magnetic field. But each field really only acts on a particle in a two dimensional plane. And the balanced state I am referring to is only achieved when both fields are declining in intensity. If this is what defines mass then the math that describes this interaction would probably become the holy grail of physics. There is something I want to point out that I don't believe has been addressed yet. If the time flows of magnetic and electric fields oppose each other and cancel out, then where does the flow of time originate from? I have suggested that it is mass changing in intensity that causes the flow of time. The would tend to indicate that the flow of time produced by changing mass is different than that of electric and magnetic fields. Hmmm, there's that three concept again. Three types of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 15, 2005 Author Share Posted October 15, 2005 MassTime and SpaceTime = Massive SpaceTime Evening Einstein, I believe I have mentioned that mass could be described as a state where time flow is zero. Yes, you have... and you have also stated (I believe) that time (or was it mass?) could be described as compressed space... is that right? I have taken note of these statements of yours, and I don't believe I have ever challenged them or told you I thought you were incorrect. But to date no one has even taken a stab at what mass really is. Maybe I have, but maybe you have not understood some things I have said. No matter... how 'bout we go from here and work it together and discuss it? I have proposed that mass is a balanced state between an electric and magnetic field. Yep. Could be. Both of these phenomena have frequency (wave) effects, and balance is a common theme in the universe. I would certainly agree that what we think of as mass results from the constructive interactions of more than one wave phenomena. This is why I favor Milo Wolff's physics theories. But each field really only acts on a particle in a two dimensional plane. And the balanced state I am referring to is only achieved when both fields are declining in intensity. These could be true, but they could also be debatable. I'm not buying them (yet), cuz I think I know some things about E/M that you might not have worked into your theory. But that can be left for later. If this is what defines mass then the math that describes this interaction would probably become the holy grail of physics. Without a doubt, I would agree that a newer and better model of mass (or matter) is what is needed, and such a model will explain many things we are grappling with currently. It is my personal belief that this new view of mass can be fully explained with current, existing, known mathematics. It involves TENSOR mathematics, and treating mass as a full vector, not the scalar we have thought it to be for oh so long... There is something I want to point out that I don't believe has been addressed yet. If the time flows of magnetic and electric fields oppose each other and cancel out, then where does the flow of time originate from? I have suggested that it is mass changing in intensity that causes the flow of time. Beautiful, Einstein. You might dispute the following, but I have been stating the same thing, but in a different way, all the time I have been speaking of Massive SpaceTime. I call the changing of mass intensity "MassTime", and it is better known in conventional science and engineering as Mass Flow Rate (m-dot). Mass per unit Time. There is a difference, IMO, between the concepts of MASS and MATTER. I claim that I can mathematically prove that MATTER is actually measured as MASS/TIME, similar to the way we already know that MOTION is actually measured as SPACE/TIME, per Einstein's GTR. I believe there are naturally occurring 3x3 tensor matrices that form Energy. I believe that existing TENSOR mathematics can define and explain a "theory of everything" once we realize that MATTER in MOTION is actually described by a 3x3=9 tensor matrix we could refer to as: MASSive SPACETIME Care to discuss, Einstein? RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Einstein Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Re: MassTime and SpaceTime = Massive SpaceTime RMT In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have proposed that mass is a balanced state between an electric and magnetic field. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep. Could be. Both of these phenomena have frequency (wave) effects, and balance is a common theme in the universe. I would certainly agree that what we think of as mass results from the constructive interactions of more than one wave phenomena. This is why I favor Milo Wolff's physics theories. In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But each field really only acts on a particle in a two dimensional plane. And the balanced state I am referring to is only achieved when both fields are declining in intensity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These could be true, but they could also be debatable. I'm not buying them (yet), cuz I think I know some things about E/M that you might not have worked into your theory. But that can be left for later. Now right here I will admit that I have stepped out of bounds because my idea of what mass is has not been experimentally verified yet. At least not publicly. And I can see your reluctance to accept something that can be considered fringe area science. But my ideas that mass could be just compressed length in a frozen time state are very appealing and do seem to describe something that is not entirely understood by the scientific community at large. So it is just a theory that I'm going to use untill something better comes along. Now I see you want to use very complex mathematics to describe something. I don't think you should proceed just yet untill more observations present themselves. Initially from what I see magnetic and electric fields are two dimensional and the fields are at right angles to each other. The fields do have a direction and share a line or one dimension. It's this shared dimension that I am intensely interested in. There are two ways to orient the two fields with each other. One way would allow the shared dimension to add and the other way would allow the shared dimension to subtract. For right now I am working with the concept of producing mass with this shared dimension in the additive configuration. I haven't even given thought to the subtractive configuration. A zero length state does suggest itself. Looks like I just opened another avenue of exploration. Right now I want to see if I can expose you to a visualization that would allow you to comprehend the mass state purely from an electric and magnetic field interaction. It involves the sticky space phenomena of course. If you remember I commented that it would take extra energy to remove the magnesium disk away from the influence of the strong magnet. Kind of like it had more mass while inside the fields influence. Now I did experimentally confirm the phenomena is actually the Lorentz force. But I was using mechanical force to accelerate the magnetic field. The magnesium seemed to become attached to the magnetic field and moved along with it. It is apparent that a resonant motion frequency allowed the observed attachment. But a moving magnetic field can be produced that would simulate the mechanical acceleration without actually accelerating the magnetic fields source. Now it is the electric field being induced within the magnesium disk that creates either an attractive or repulsive reaction to the moving magnetic field. By changing the electric field intensity inside the disk the amount of attraction or repulsion could be increased to the point of an equal but opposite force to the changing magnetic fields influence. The electric field intensity does not have to originate within the disk. The disk would aquire the voltage state of the electric field. At the balance state the disk would be held in place by the moving electric and magnetic fields. It would be very difficult to pull the disk out. It would seem like the disk was very heavy. Like it had aquired more mass. The thing I want to point out is that this visualization shows how to increase mass in an object standing still. The magnetic and electric fields are in motion in order to induce this effect. It doesn't seem like such a far out concept. Everything seems plausable using just a slight variation of how the Lorentz force works. But now I have a concept of mass to play with. It's not that hard to extend this concept into a type of mass that changes in intensity. Time Machine! (maybe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 16, 2005 Author Share Posted October 16, 2005 Information Is The Next Level Hi Einstein, Now right here I will admit that I have stepped out of bounds because my idea of what mass is has not been experimentally verified yet. At least not publicly. And I can see your reluctance to accept something that can be considered fringe area science. OK, thanks. But my ideas that mass could be just compressed length in a frozen time state are very appealing and do seem to describe something that is not entirely understood by the scientific community at large. So it is just a theory that I'm going to use untill something better comes along. OK. I think you're close. But IMHO I would slightly tweak your statement and say that Mass is actually compressed SpaceTime. Where SpaceTime (AKA LengthTime) is a tensor field which can be mathematically descibed as an interaction of two vectors (Space or Length and Time). But that's just what I think... and I'm pretty sure I can describe it mathematically. Now I see you want to use very complex mathematics to describe something. Do you think they are complex only because you might not understand them? If you understand the concept of a vector, then it is hard to disagree with the eventual extension of the vector to the generalized tensor. The tensor calculus solutions I have developed are only "complex" in that they are closed-loop, non-linear dependencies between Mass, Space, and Time. You seem to understand the importance of threes. My theory describes 3 dimensions, each of them with 3 subdimensions. The tensor math is based on phenomenon that occur in orthogonal sets of three. I assure you that once you mathematically treat Mass and Time as the full 3-vectors that they are, the realization of the tensor matrix set we call Massive SpaceTime follows almost intuitively. It's this shared dimension that I am intensely interested in. Shared dimensions are the key. Think about these shared dimensions:SpaceTime = Velocity/Motion = Space per unit Time. MassTime = Objects/Matter = Mass per unit Time. MassSpace = Mass Density = Mass per unit Space. Each of these is a shared dimension, and I can describe them all mathematically by the intersection of two orthogonal vector fields. That makes each of the above shared dimensions a tensor field of the first order. When you consider all of these shared dimensions at the same time (a 3-dimensional tensor field), you then end up with a tensor field of the 3rd order. I call that tensor field Massive SpaceTime. A 3-way mix of 3's. Right now I want to see if I can expose you to a visualization that would allow you to comprehend the mass state purely from an electric and magnetic field interaction. No intent to offend you, but I believe my tensor math model has a better mathematical definition than you have with a visualization. My theory is computable, and yours is only visualizable. So I can actually study and compare my computable theory with empirical measurement data. I think I can explain the relationship between force (acceleration), energy (velocity), and information (length/position), and I think I can do it with rigorous mathematical models. The magnetic and electric fields are in motion in order to induce this effect. Yes. This is a key observation, and I agree because Motion of any sort is a metric of SpaceTime. This is precisely why an electric field varys with current, because current is a measure of the MOTION of charge. It doesn't seem like such a far out concept. Everything seems plausable using just a slight variation of how the Lorentz force works. But now I have a concept of mass to play with. It's not that hard to extend this concept into a type of mass that changes in intensity. Time Machine! (maybe) I'm certainly not going to deter you in your experiements! Just keep us informed about the data you collect. I can say that we are both in agreement about the balancing effects between electric fields and magnetic fields. But maybe we disagree in the underlying mechanism that drives them?In any event, I am pretty confident that I have a good mathematical story for how Force, Energy, and Information all relate to each other in a fractally-embedded manner. If my theory and model is correct, then I predict we will soon come upon an agreed-to "set" of models of mass. One model for mass is as a complete scalar, and it is responsible for F=ma. The next level of model complexity is mass as a vector, and it is responsible for E=mc^2. The highest level of model complexity for mass would be as a tensor of the first order (information), and I think this is described (in a scalar relation form) by the equation I=ms^3. Here's something to think about that my equation predicts: As the VOLUME (s^3) of a "Hubble bubble" defined by LIGHTSPEED (c^2) increases, the amount of information increases linearly with volume. This would correspond to the fact that as we look and observe further out in our universe away from earth, we will be gathering more information that is available from the universe itself. One could literally verify my equation by simply noting that as we progress away from the earth in our observations, our information base increases. Yet we are only observing matter as we expand our powers of observation out into space. This concept of observation of matter at a distance is what makes possible the non-linear concept of Information. And Information is eternal, it is invariant with Time. RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

newbie_0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted October 29, 2005 Author Share Posted October 29, 2005 Hi newbie, Hi RMT, the tshirt arrived today. It's awsome hehe! 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! :yum: 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? 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) RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

newbie_0 Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 I'm still studying your last post but as for what to call it? How about Kashmir (led zeppelin song reference) =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted November 6, 2005 Author Share Posted November 6, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Einstein Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts