The Ultimate formula
Mitch Raemsch
mathkills
wrote:
> Time. Geometry. Energy.
Beer. Pizza. Porno.
PD
wrote:
> Time. Geometry. Energy.
Ultimate. Formula. Where?
Alie...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Time. Geometry. Energy.
An actual "formula" would relate those elements with mathematical
"operators", "functions", "relations" and such; you may be familiar
with the simpler ones like "plus", "minus", and "equals" for instance.
Try adding some to your words above to see if you can write an
actual "formula".
Mark L. Fergerson
Osmium
(Energy)(Time)=Geometry
Koobee Wublee
below.
0 = 0
That formula was the thesis in Einstein’s only book in his lifetime.
The subject of this book is of course relativity which is extremely
poorly written. In it, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar was able to pull out the Lorentz transform from the ultimate
formula above. Priests of SR and GR are still totally bedazzled by
that matheMAGICal trick today.
mike3
wrote:
> Time. Geometry. Energy.
Excuse me? You said a formula. Just listing some things
is not a formula.
<begin goofing off>
Actually, the Ultimate formula, expressed as an equation,
would have one side as the number "42". What the other side
is, we don't know. Hah!
<end goofing off>
Uncle Al
>
> Time. Geometry. Energy.
Fish. Bicycle. Empyema.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Alie...@gmail.com
Fails dimensional analysis, but is still an infinite improvement.
Mark L. Fergerson
Mitch Raemsch
> Mitch Raemsch wrote:
>
> > Time. Geometry. Energy.
>
> Fish. Bicycle. Empyema.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Moving space has round geometry.
Mitch Reamsch
tadchem
wrote:
> Time. Geometry. Energy.
In the 60's:
Sex. Drugs. Rock'n'roll.
(formula for hedonism)
In the first century CE:
Bread. Circuses.
(formula for pacification of the masses)
In the 16th century:
Slaves. Rum. Textiles.
(formula for great wealth through international trade)
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b0fafeeb-d1f1-42ab...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Late 19th century
A loaf of bread. A jug of wine. And thou.
(love poem by Edward Fitzgerald)
David A. Smith
The Ghost In The Machine
<mitch.nico...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
<4b256b56-1354-4e22...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:
> Time. Geometry. Energy.
Try G_\mu\nu + \Lambda{g_\mu\nu} = {8\pi\G \over c^4}T_\mu\nu [*] .
Not that I expect you to understand this -- certainly I
don't, except that \pi, G, and c are well-known constants,
and \Lambda is the cosmological constant. I'm not up
on proper handling of the tensors G_\mu\nu, T_\mu\nu,
and g_\mu\nu .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
Nor does this even qualify as the ultimate formula, as it
doesn't address the quantum effects readily visible at
the microlevel.
Quantum effects might be addressable by the Dirac equation:
( {\beta}m_e{c^2} + sum(k=1 to 3)(\alpha_k{p_k}c ) ) \psi(x,t) =
i\hbar{\partial \psi \over \partial t}(x,t)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
where m_e is electron mass, p is the momentum operator,
alpha and beta are Hermitian matrices, \psi is
the wavefunction (a quantum mechanical concept),
i^2 = -1, and x and t are the space and time coordinates.
AFAIK, mathematicians/physicists have yet to merge the two.
[*] the notation I'm using is a slightly simplified form of TeX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX
In strict TeX one would use the notation \sum_{k=1}^3,
which is less clear from an ASCII standpoint.
There are more authoritative references, I'm sure.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Now in nine exciting editions. Try them all!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Osmium
In the 1860's Women, Wine, Song, same thing.
Usually Wine, Women and Song; and Drugs, Sex and
Rock and Roll.
holog
nu...@bid.nes wrote:
isn't it energy = (mass) x (time)?
Alie...@gmail.com
Grading your troll on a scale of one-to-ten with (Mitch's being a
ten solely for comparison purposes in this exercise), I give you a
four point five. Your troll score was lower than his because you
demonstrate a familiarity with not only basic mathematics (you know
how to construct an equation) but also with Dimensional Analysis.
I'd have given you a lower score but the sheer innocence of the way
you phrased your question was disarming enough to get you several
bonus points.
Anyway, for those truly interested, here's a brief introduction to
Dimensional Analysis using commonly understandable quantities:
http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/humor/equation.html
Mark L. Fergerson
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
>
> Moving space has round geometry.
Pi R-squared.
No sir. Pie are round. Cornbread are square.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Koobee Wublee
> Am Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:24:38 -0700 schrieb Koobee Wublee:
> > After you have gained your senses, please examine the ultimate formula
> > below.
>
> > 0 = 0
>
> Well, we start out with the definition
>
> x=y
>
> Then we multiply both sides by x
>
> x^2 = x*y
>
> Then we subtract y^2 from both sides
>
> x^2 - y^2 = x*y - y^2
>
> Then we factor both sides
>
> (x-y)*(x+y) = (x-y)*y
>
> Then we divide out x-y
>
> x+y = y
>
> But since x=y we can substitute...
>
> 2*x = x
>
> Now we divide out x
>
> 2 = 1
>
> Oooops, that's not what you were looking for, wasn't it? [smile]
Yes, an excellent but infantile matheMAGICal trick that is. <shrug>
> > That formula was the thesis in Einstein’s only book in his lifetime. The
>
> Obviously you don't know anything about Einstein. (He wrote several
> books.)
And how many books were actually written by Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar? I mean the ones without either a ghost
writer or an alpha-co-author. <shrug>
> > subject of this book is of course relativity which is extremely poorly
> > written. In it, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was
>
> Obviously you don't know anything about Relativity.
This accusation shows how poor your understanding of relativity is
after I have made my sound cases without any serious challenges.
Please note that believing is not learning. <shrug>
> > able to pull out the Lorentz transform from the ultimate formula above.
>
> Obviously you don't know anything about math, which is why I believe you
> won't get the joke in the derivation above.
So, let me get this straight. Just because you can perform that
infantile matheMAGICal trick, you are able to conclude my mathematical
skill is poor. That is some fine connection all right. <shrug>
> > Priests of SR and GR are still totally bedazzled by that matheMAGICal
> > trick today.
>
> Mmmmmmmm. Haven't taken your lithium today?
I am very sorry to disappoint you, but I do not take lithium. <shrug>
Should I start to take lithium? If so and if I develop health
problems, are you going to be responsible for it? Are you a doctor of
medicine?
--- Older messages ---
On Aug 11, 9:54 pm, The TimeLord <math-n-physics-...@att.com> wrote:
> Am Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:24:38 -0700 schrieb Koobee Wublee
> <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> in
> cca028de-7650-4d53-b68d-cbe619ef8...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > After you have gained your senses, please examine the ultimate formula
> > below.
>
> > 0 = 0
>
> Well, we start out with the definition
>
> x=y
>
> Then we multiply both sides by x
>
> x^2 = x*y
>
> Then we subtract y^2 from both sides
>
> x^2 - y^2 = x*y - y^2
>
> Then we factor both sides
>
> (x-y)*(x+y) = (x-y)*y
>
> Then we divide out x-y
>
> x+y = y
>
> But since x=y we can substitute...
>
> 2*x = x
>
> Now we divide out x
>
> 2 = 1
>
> Oooops, that's not what you were looking for, wasn't it? [smile]
>
>
>
> > That formula was the thesis in Einstein’s only book in his lifetime. The
>
> Obviously you don't know anything about Einstein. (He wrote several
> books.)
>
> > subject of this book is of course relativity which is extremely poorly
> > written. In it, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was
>
> Obviously you don't know anything about Relativity.
>
> > able to pull out the Lorentz transform from the ultimate formula above.
>
> Obviously you don't know anything about math, which is why I believe you
> won't get the joke in the derivation above.
>
> > Priests of SR and GR are still totally bedazzled by that matheMAGICal
> > trick today.
>
> Mmmmmmmm. Haven't taken your lithium today?
>
> --
> // The TimeLord says:
> // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Energy moves through the unified field.
holog
e=mc(squared) time is taken for granted. i.e. speed=distance/time.
what exactly is time? obviously it is the limit at which photons
travel, but is that an exact measurement? the density of the medium
obviously plays a role in this.
ok here is the hard part, density assumes there is mass, and mass has
a field effect...........ok your turn explain the rest.
holog
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"holog" <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2dKok.9418$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> hmmmm, wasn't expecting a troll response,
On usenet? Imagine that...
> in the infamous formula e=mc(squared) time is
> taken for granted. i.e. speed=distance/time.
> what exactly is time? obviously it is the limit at
> which photons travel, but is that an exact
> measurement?
Yes. In fact c is a decreed constant, and the meter is
established by time and the speed of light.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
Metal rods have "secular length change" problems. Steel gets
shorter, and alloy rods get longer.
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/104/3/html/j43bee.htm
David A. Smith
holog
static place. it has a considerable amount of momentum. have you
thought about that?
holog
foolsrushin.
> hmmmm, wasn't expecting a troll response, in the infamous formula
> e=mc(squared) time is taken for granted. i.e. speed=distance/time.
> what exactly is time? obviously it is the limit at which photons
> travel, but is that an exact measurement? the density of the medium
> obviously plays a role in this.
> ok here is the hard part, density assumes there is mass, and mass has
> a field effect...........ok your turn explain the rest.
> holog
Suppose there are almost ultimately only 'ideas', massless but
purposeful,
upper-dimesional, yet, by thinking, able to acquire and use mass in 3D
+1+2, etc. Suppose, also, they are next door!
holog
and who is next door?
holog
Androcles
| standards are given for a specific place, i.e. earth. which is not a
| static place. it has a considerable amount of momentum. have you
| thought about that?
|
|
| holog
When the Earth passes through a meteor shower such as the Leonids
it transfers some of that momentum to the meteors. Have you thought
about that?
foolsrushin
> hmmmm........I think it is called intention, a forceful "push" of intent.
> and who is next door?
> holog
> foolsrushin. wrote:
Let's start again!
Suppose there are almost ultimately only 'ideas', massless but
purposeful, upper-dimesional, yet, by thinking, able to acquire and
use mass in 3D
+1+2+3, etc.
Suppose, also, they are next door!
Numbers have no mass! How do they work on the world. e/pi, for
example.
--
foolsrushin.
BURT
It seems to me that the physical things that cannot be reduced any
further in their definition are immutable elements that work together
for a unified order.
Mitch Raemsch
foolsrushin
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 11:36 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >> foolsrushin wrote:
> >>> Does God need to prove He exists?
> >> [snip crap]
> >> She. Maiden/Mother/Crone. Satan is God on the rag.
> > Satan is an evil Spirit.
> > Robert B. Winn
> Or Satan could be the personification of all evil in the universe.
> --
> -Sophia
> light.of.sop...@DIVINEgmail.com
> Remove DIVINE to email
************************************************************************************************
Or maybe the product of inarticulacy. In 'Pygmalion', Eliza for the
sake of Pygmalion/ My Fair Lady - is rushed through the
transformation to make a point.
In love with Shaw's stuff, Lerner and Lowe said they would never have
tried to write a musical based on Pygmalion, had they known that it
was going to be so difficult. They confessed that it almost killed
them!
They left us with the best musical in the world, retaining not only
the spirit of Shaw, but, more often than not, the words of the play!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHEN20RB8UM&feature=related
--
foolsrushin.
PS: Sorry, guys, but my reply will otherwise disappear into something
that may never decidedly halt - though I suspect it will stop!
--
foolsrushin.
Alie...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Dear holog:
>
> "holog" <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2dKok.9418$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> > hmmmm, wasn't expecting a troll response,
>
> On usenet? Imagine that...
Looked to me that _I_ was responding to a troll. The hint about
"dimensional analysis" wasn't taken, which reinforces my guess.
In case I was wrong, look at this 'holog':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
Now, rewrite your equation:
> energy = (mass) x (time)
in terms of M, L, and T and see if you can tell what's wrong with
it.
> > in the infamous formula e=mc(squared) time is
> > taken for granted. i.e. speed=distance/time.
> > what exactly is time? obviously it is the limit at
> > which photons travel, but is that an exact
> > measurement?
>
> Yes. In fact c is a decreed constant, and the meter is
> established by time and the speed of light.http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
>
> Metal rods have "secular length change" problems. Steel gets
> shorter, and alloy rods get longer.http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/104/3/html/j43bee.htm
Cute, considering it specifically mentions Invar.
Mark L. Fergerson
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44c80b22-1687-4e4c...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 13, 5:47 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
> <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
...
>> > in the infamous formula e=mc(squared) time is
>> > taken for granted. i.e. speed=distance/time.
>> > what exactly is time? obviously it is the limit at
>> > which photons travel, but is that an exact
>> > measurement?
...
>> Metal rods have "secular length change" problems.
>> Steel gets shorter, and alloy rods get longer.
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/104/3/html/j43bee.htm
>
> Cute, considering it specifically mentions Invar.
Yes, and the secular length increase is 1 part in 10^8 per year,
and the secular "decrease in c" from the mid-1940s to 1960 (63?)
is 1 part in 10^8, so Pt-Ir was the culprit in the apparent
change in c for that period. Timing and transfer methods had
improved tremendously...
Just odd that steel changes just the opposite...
David A. Smith
holog
also it is apparent you have not defined "steel" or "alloy", are these
materials made of specific elements?
holog
Alie...@gmail.com
> sorry , could you rephrase the question to be a little more exact?
Why yes; yes, I cold.
> also it is apparent you have not defined "steel" or "alloy", are these
> materials made of specific elements?
ROTFL! You're getting much better at this! Yes, of course steel is a
class of alloys of C and Fe.
BTW:
> > In case I was wrong, look at this 'holog':
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
>
> > Now, rewrite your equation:
>
> >>energy = (mass) x (time)
>
> > in terms of M, L, and T and see if you can tell what's wrong with
> > it.
That is to say:
energy = M*(L^2/T^2)
mass = M
time = T
hence energy = (mass) x (time) becomes
M*(L^2/T^2) = M*T
which rather obviously does not equate.
> >>>in the infamous formula e=mc(squared) time is
> >>>taken for granted. i.e. speed=distance/time.
> >>>what exactly is time? obviously it is the limit at
> >>>which photons travel, but is that an exact
> >>>measurement?
>
> >>Yes. In fact c is a decreed constant, and the meter is
> >>established by time and the speed of light.http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
>
> >>Metal rods have "secular length change" problems. Steel gets
> >>shorter, and alloy rods get longer.http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/104/3/html/j43bee.htm
>
> > Cute, considering it specifically mentions Invar.
'Invar' is an Fe-Ni alloy named for it's near-nonexistent
coefficient of thermal expansion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invar
'invar' as in 'invariant', see?
That about cover it for you?
Mark L. Fergerson
holog
holog
Alie...@gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantity
Middle of the page, table "ISQ base quantities".
Notice the next sentence:
"All other quantities are derived quantities since their dimensions
are derived from those of base quantities by multiplication and
division."
That's why 'energy' is called a 'derived quantity'. Now look at your
equation again and think about this for a while.
Mark L. Fergerson
holog
nu...@bid.nes wrote:
what was time again?
holog
Alie...@gmail.com
"keeps on slippin' slippin' slippin'
into the future"
Mark L. Fergerson