Tag Archives: Time

In 10 Words, or Less… the most logical structure for (single-body) space-time

spatially-hexaxial, with time as the seventh dimension

 
 
 

Leave a comment

Filed under Esoterics, Reason, Science

Physics. Alternative definitions…

Wikipedia: 

Physics is the study of matter, motion and energy.

alt.S.defs:

Physics is the study of natural abiotic dynamics.

Physics is a plot to expose every universal law, true constant, and eternal ratio.

Physics is an ongoing effort to write a technical user’s manual for the universe.

Physics is the contextual study of matter and energy moving in time and space.

Physics is the rationality of actuality.

Physics is the study of inanimate behaviours.

Physics is a science in search of its own meaning.

unrelated rant:

I think it’s unfair that Space gets three dimensions, while Time gets but one.

What is Space, anyway? A whole lot of nothing! And it’s like that in every direction, as far as the eye can see — or the mind imagine. Even if you fill it up with stuff, without time, nothing will ever happen there. And yet, man, in his ‘wisdom’, has seen fit to confer upon this vast and virtual wasteland the lavish gift of three full axes!

To its credit, though, Time takes no offense, seemingly secure in the knowledge that its unitary comportment is perfectly the match of its partner’s triplicity.

1 Comment

Filed under Esoterics, Reason, Science, Words

So Long, Kodachrome

afghan girl by Steve McCurry for National Geographic magazine

Afghan Girl, 1984; Steve McCurry, National Geographic

After a run of 75 years, the last roll of Kodachrome film will be developed today at Dwayne’s Photo in Kansas — until now, the last remaining Kodachrome developer in the world.

Kodachrome brought us some of the most vibrant and stunning photography of the past three-quarters of a century, such as this award-winning photograph of a young Afghan girl snapped by National Geographic’s Steve McCurry in 1984.

The story of this haunting image can be found at National Geographic’s site.

Kodak discontinued production of the film last summer. Farewell, old friend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Arts, Economy, Images, Life

The Advent of Monolithic Man: Addendum Notice

An addendum to The Advent of Monolithic Man was added on this date.

Comments Off on The Advent of Monolithic Man: Addendum Notice

Filed under Science

On Gravity

 

Gravity is a non-waveform phenomenon.


Light responds to gravity at the speed of light.


Gravity is atemporal but its effects cascade through time.

 

— from Steinman’s “Attributes of G”

Leave a comment

Filed under 10 Words or Less, Science

What the… ?

A beam of light travels from Point A to Point B.

You, a scientist, measure its rate of progress on that journey and aren’t surprised to find that it agrees precisely with the universal standard, just as it did countless times before. But you verify it anyway because you’re diligent – and there’s always that slim but tantalising chance that you might find a cool anomaly.

And then it happens.

You glance up from your computer screen and your eyes come to rest on a poster of Einstein that one of your co-workers has crookedly taped to the wall above his workstation.

The moment passes and you look away, but something seems changed. It’s nothing you can define. Everything just ‘feels’ different. You smell your coffee to make sure the cream hasn’t gone bad. You’re slightly concerned, but decide to carry on because you’re diligent – and there’s always a chance that your boss might pop in… and you still owe him a report. Okay, so maybe you’re not that diligent, but at least you’re earnest.

So, you continue working on your report. It’s difficult to stay focused, but you doggedly persist. After 20 minutes, you stop short.

You check to make sure that no one’s around – and then you say out loud what you’ve been thinking for the past half hour:

“If time slows down as you approach c and theoretically stops there, then how do we account for light’s measured progress through our space/time-frame?”

© 2009

2 Comments

Filed under Reason, Science

The Advent of Monolithic Man

The word ‘monolith’ denotes something that is massive and uniform. As such, it can be applied to anything from a large, continuous piece of stone to a person of towering, unique intellect – someone who stands alone in his or her field of endeavour. In the latter case, there is perhaps no more perfect an example than that of the late professor Albert Einstein.

Had he not existed, we would not have GPS systems because the satellites can only be coordinated using the principles enshrined in his theories of Relativity. We might not even have television because he was the one who defined the photoelectric effect. Let’s not even tread into the more esoteric worlds of gravitational lensing, Bose-Einstein condensates, or the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.

At the conclusion of 1999, Time magazine declared him to be the Person of the Century. FDR and Gandhi were mere runners-up.

Whether a matter of sheer coincidence or some bizarre manifestation of destiny, the name Einstein may have held a clue about the potential of this singularly impressive individual.

EINSTEIN =
EIN + STEIN (German) =
ONE + STONE (English) =
MONO + LITH (Latin) =
MONOLITH

A note about the cover shot from Time:

The iconic image of Einstein on our cover was taken in 1947 by the legendary photographer Philippe Halsman. Einstein was not fond of photographers (he called them Lichtaffen, or light monkeys), but he had a soft spot for Halsman. Einstein had personally included the photographer on a list of German artists and scientists getting emergency U.S. visas to evade Nazi capture. Halsman recalled that Einstein ruminated painfully in his study on the legacy of E=mc²: talk of atomic war, an arms race. “So you don’t believe that there will ever be peace?” Halsman asked as he released the shutter. Einstein’s eyes, Halsman said, “had a look of immense sadness…a question and a reproach in them.” He answered, “No. As long as there will be man, there will be war.”

Most people don’t have the time or patience required to understand the physics of Einstein, so I’m posting this practical explanation of what could be called Basic Relativity, as opposed to Einstein’s Special or General theories of Relativity.

It was derived in very much the same way that Einstein initiated his own theories – through rigorous, logical thought experiments and a healthy dose of creative intuition. (Generally, for Einstein, the formal mathematics to support his theories came in the secondary stage of his theoretical explorations.)

So, here’s a straight-forward, logical statement on Relativity (in 10 words or less) that doesn’t break any physical laws and which can even be seen to underpin many of those accepted rules – including the absolutely fundamental inverse square law. The principle (along with a simple mathematical proof) was developed by an amateur cosmologist in 2005.

Steinman’s theorem simply states:

Matter is to energy as time is to space.”

Proof:

matter : energy = time : space

m : e = t : s

m / 1 : e / 1 = 1 / v : v / 1
(v is velocity or acceleration)

e = mv²
(in the ultimate case, e = mc²)

 

mets

 

~

UPDATE: December 1, 2009

In response to requests for additional information on this topic, here is an addendum posted by Mr. Steinman to a related IOP [Institute of Physics] discussion group thread on LinkedIn…

~

I can fully understand that it’s difficult to grasp the concept:

“Matter is to energy as time is to space.” ~ But that’s the way things work.

In Gary’s [Dr. Navrotski’s] earlier response, he cited E(k)= ½mv² (the kinetic energy of a rigid body in motion) which aligns perfectly with Einstein’s Relativity. (Note: It is “½m” because the other half of the mass would be contributed in any collision by the body which is struck, à la Newton’s Third Law.)

The key to my challenge [as defined in the IOP discussion] was the word “absolute”, since this is when c embodies the most acute aspect of the accelerative component and reveals itself as absolutely central to nuclear reactivity.

Though the matter of “why” is addressed in the logical statement, the following may help to identify “how” c creeps into the calculation:

In a four-variable equation, you need to resolve at least two of them in order to extract any significant meaning.

The first thing to test is an absolute. Ideally, you’d want to interject a constant that satisfies two of the four variables.

There’s only one universal constant ( c : speed of light in vacuo) that applies to two of the four variables (in this case, time and space) without any need for statistical uncertainty (in Newtonian G uncertainty is 1.0 x 10^-4; the Planck and reducedPlanck constants have an uncertainty factor of 5.0 x 10^-8).

So, plug in the appropriate, defined, universal constant ( c ).

But you can’t plug c directly into both the Time and Space placeholders without a very minor adjustment:

For Time, it must be stated as the amount of time required for light to travel one standard unit of distance ( 1 / c ). For Space, it is the distance traversed by light in one standard unit of time ( c / 1 ). This reflects the interrelated nature of space and time as a true continuum.

This works regardless which set of standard units is used.

(Note: It may help to view time as latency; how fast something DOESN’T happen.)

After cross-multiplying the equation, you get e = mc², which conforms precisely to Einstein’s Relativity principle for mass-energy equivalence.

The nine-word statement (“matter is to energy as time is to space”) can serve as an answer to the original question (Why c² in e = mc² ?) or it can be viewed as a description of Relativity in its most fundamentally naked form.

While the logic of equating m/e to t/s will seem completely obtuse to most readers, the simplicity of the proof is inescapable.

Simple, but not overly so. (Some do find it maddening.)

Viewing things through the prism of “matter is to energy as time is to space”, you will find that none of the established laws are broken ~ only gently bent.

© 2009

Leave a comment

Filed under 10 Words or Less, Reason, Science