Is this "Axiomatic Equation" Energy?
huma...@aol.com
1. Energy is the basic common denominator of known physics, as
eloquently expressed by Einstein's famous equation: E = mc^2
2. Energy can also be expressed (DeBroglie) as: E = hc/L , where h =
Planck's constant, c = light velocity, L = photon lambda, so that we
can say:
E = hc/L = mc^2
3. Now, if light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, the we can also
say (per Hyperphysics:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html -and-
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html), per
Maxwell's equation:
Em/Bm = c , and c = 1/(eo mo)^1/2
so that magnetic value times lightspeed: Bm * c = Em, its electric
value equivalent.
The question then becomes, can this equation be raised to the level of
Energy?
4. A way to do this is to multiply Em by lightspeed, so that:
Em * c = (Bm)c^2, which says that an electron accelerated to
lightspeed is energy, which if so gives us:
Em * c = (Bm)c^2 = E
5. Combining the above into a continuous equation gives us:
Em * c = hc/L = h/L(eo mo)^1/2 = (Bm)c^2
6. However, this is a still incomplete equation, taking E = mc^2, we
then have:
Em * c = hc/L = h/L(eo mo)^1/2 = (Bm)c^2 = mc^2 = E
* * *
Now, this last continuos equation gives us a way to interrelate
electric field, magnetic field, Planck's constant, photon lambda, and
mass, all as Energy. This looks like a rather unifying equation for
these forces, except gravity is still missing. The way to solve this
(and here we are threading on new and dangerous ground) is to give
mass a gravity and magnetic value.
If we set mass as m = 1, to represent one hydrogen atom, which is an
incomplete value, since from it is missing a gravitational constant,
which is represented here as negative g = 5.9x10^-39, a negative
remainder from how the atom is formed, so that mass is now expressed
as: m (gravity/kilograms) = (1-g)
(as per Gravity Force Coupling at:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html which
is not the same as Newtonian G)
Likewise, if we set mass for magnetic, then the internal atomic
positive and negative magnetic charges equal zero, m = 0, except for
the atom's magnetic remainder, which here is set as a postivie value
at m = (0+Bm). Therefore, m (magnetic potential) = Bm
(This can further be illustrated with E/c^2 = m, which is now E/c^2 =
Bm, which translates into E = (Bm)c^2, as per #4 above.)
7. So, in taking the energy continuous equation to its conclusion,
using the new values for mass, we get:
Em * c = hc/L = h/L(eo mo)^1/2 = (Bm)c^2 = (1-g)c^2 = E
which now represents an Axiomatic Equation for Energy including
electric field, magnetic field, light speed, Planck's constant, photon
lambda, mass, and gravity. (Please note the gravity constant is not
Newton's Gravity, for it is a proton to proton value, which needs to
be converted further to become Newton's G.) This axiomatic equation,
with conversions and SI Base Units values, was developed more
extensively at: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?84/108.html
I am posting this equation here to solicit reasonable feedback. Is
energy universal? Can it be expressed as per the 7 equations listed
above? If not, where lies the error?
The conclusion (speculative at this point) from how this axiomatic
equation is written is that electromagnetic energy and gravity become
inversely proportional to the energy environment within which they are
measured. This may mean, a possibility only, that gravity density
around Pluto will be greater than that of Mercury, which would then
mean that in using the Orbital Equation: v^2*R = GM, yields for us a
mass reading that may be inaccurate, since we had always assumed G to
be constant. Of course, if it is not constant, then the mass values
must represent something else, which may mean that Pluto is really a
dirty water ice ball planet, whereas Mercury is nearly all metallic.
The other ramification is that it would provide us a way to solve for
various components of the equation in relation to each other.
Please feel free to comment, or criticize, with specific references to
any argument for or against.
Many thanks, appreciate your inputs,
Ivan
huma...@aol.com
> 7. So, in taking the energy continuous equation to its conclusion,
> using the new values for mass, we get:
>
> Em * c = hc/L = h/L(eo mo)^1/2 = (Bm)c^2 = (1-g)c^2 = E
Per my post "Axiomatic Equation" for Energy, I include the universal
units used to work out in meters, kilograms, and time, as follows:
If E = Em • c = hc/L = h/L(eomo)^1/2 =(Bm)c^2 = (1-g)c^2 = Energy
(Equation per post below) and c = 1/(eomo)^1/2 = 2.998e8 m.s^-1, then:
Em x 2.998e8 m.s^-1 = (6.626e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1 x 2.998e8 m.s-1) /
2.2087e-42 m.s = (Bm) x 8.99e16 m^2.s^-2 = (1 - 5.9e-39 kg.s^-1) x
8.99e16 m^2.s^-2 = ~8.99e16 m^2.kg.s^-3 = Energy, in Joules per
second, or Watts.
(Please bear in mind that kilograms are a function of gravity, an
abreviation of "m^3.kg^-1.s^-2" into "kg".)
So missing are Em and Bm:
Electric force = Em = ~2.998e8 m.kg.s^-2, which is Joules per meter,
or the Newton force, and:
Magnetic force = Bm = ~1 x kg.s^-1, which is Newtons per meter per
second, or Joules per meter squared per second, to complete the
dimensional values for the equation.
As worked out using the SI Base Units at:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
Final E result is in Joules per seconds, or Watts:
i.e., E = ~8.99e16 m^2.kg.s^-3.
Please keep in mind that for these calculations, I used mass = 1, or
kg/kg, and (gravitational constant proton to proton) g = 5.9x10^-39
(kg.s^-1) or N/m/s.
Ivan
======================================================================
huma...@aol.com wrote in message news:<30067f9b.03081...@posting.google.com>...