EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND TIME
Alexander Abian
EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND TIME
(Space, Mass and Time)
Alexander Abian
Professor of Mathematics
There is an eternal battle, struggle and clash between the two
primordial Cosmic adversaries: the Space and the Mass.
The Space treats the Mass as a hostile intruder which threatens Space's
neutrality and voidness.
In fact, Space in order to disencumber itself from the concentrated
presence of the Mass tries to dilute, dissolve and disintegrate the Mass.
To this end, the Space tends to tear and pull apart the Mass by sucking
it out into its void and fragmenting it further and further.
At the primeval stage, the Cosmic mass was violently sucked out from its
primeval state (perhaps as a primeval fireball) and with a furious and
tempestuous force was fulminated into the Space giving rise to the
existing Cosmos. I call that stage "The Big Suck Stage" and the
corresponding theory "The Big Suck Theory" (contrary to the currently
held "The Big Bang Theory" which is nonconvincing to many).
The sucking out process mentioned above, had caused and continues to
cause the ejection, emission and spreading out of the masses and
particles as continuously moving mass waves (or matter waves).
The Space's continual diluting and spreading out of the primeval Mass is
confirmed by the Expanding Universe phenomenon.
In its turn, the primeval concentrated Mass tends to resist its
disintegration and its fragmentation caused by the Space.
To this end, the Mass exhibits various reactions and oppositions to its
being sucked out and diluted by the Space. This is confirmed by the
gravitational attraction of Masses and by various other mass-attracting
forces such as the electro-magnetic forces, weak and strong nuclear forces,
etc.
It is not unreasonable to attribute to any object some qualities which
are generally attributed to animate species and, in particular, to human
beings. After all, all objects (animate or inanimate) are built from the
same basic particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., etc.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect that the basic instincts of the
animate species are shared (sometimes to the smallest and almost
undetectable degree) by all objects, be them space, particles, galaxies,
cluster of galaxies or even the entire Cosmos.
I believe that the most basic instinct which motivates the behavior and
actions of any object is the insatiable tendency to gain a "feeling of
security". I cannot define "security" since I do not know of a more basic
concept which could possibly be used to define "security".
The process of gaining a feeling of security by any object (animate or
inanimate) manifests itself mainly through:
(i) The tendency of maintaining the status quo,
(ii) Reaction to provocation,
(iii) The tendency of maintaining again (and not necessarily the
previous) a status quo.
With an anthropomorphic approach, one can say, that in any interaction
or in any relationship between any two entities or objects (animate or
inanimate), the tendency of gaining a feeling of security manifests itself
through:
(iv) imposition of one's presence and of one's will upon the other(s)
i.e., will to power and the struggle for power.
Items (i) to (iv) can be detected in the clashes between the two
primordial Cosmic adversaries: the Space and the Mass. They convert the
Cosmos into a gigantic battlefield with massive stellar explosions,
cataclysmic collisions of meteors and with violent whirlings of expanding
galaxies. In fact, they make Cosmos replete with turbulent and
devastating encounters of celestial masses in a chaotic randomness which
is even more random than the throwing of dice. It is a sheer idealistic
euphoria on the part of Newton and Einstein to consider the Cosmos as
being "Endowed with a profound Cosmic wisdom and a Celestial Supreme
Harmony". This is a sheer ecstasy imbued in a slavish reverence.
On a smaller scale, manifestations of (i) to (iv) can be detected in the
following examples:
Repulsion and attraction of electric charges. Space, in order to
maintain its primeval status quo of electric neutrality, forces the like
electric charges to repel each other so as to prevent the further
concentration of electric charges. For the same reason, space forces the
unlike electric charges to attract and cancel each other.
In the above example the presence of electric charges was the
provocation and the reaction was their repulsion or their attraction.
Of course, the abovementioned tendency of Space to maintain its electric
neutrality can be overpowered and huge amounts of like electric charges
can be amassed.
Also, depending on the cases, the tendency of Mass to maintain its
primeval status quo of staying together can overpower the repulsion of
like electric charges if the gravitational attraction of the masses of
like electric charges is more powerful than their electric repulsion.
In the same vein, when a glass rod rubs on wool,negative and positive
electric charges are produced to attract each other and stop the rubbing
process , i.e., to maintain the pre-rubbing status quo.
In the above example the provocation was the rubbing and the reaction
was the production of unlike electric charges to stop the rubbing.
Repulsion and attraction of magnetic poles. Space, in order to maintain
its magnetic neutrality, tries to minimize the number of free magnetic
poles. So if two magnetic bars are separated, there are four free
magnetic poles. Space tries to create a configuration in such a way as
to reduce the number of free magnetic poles to two or to zero.
In the above example the provocation was the presence of the free
magnetic poles and the reaction was the reduction of their numbers.
Magnetic field inside a loop. The reason that a constant supply of
electric current is needed to maintain a magnetic field inside a
wire-loop is to oppose Space's tendency to annul the presence of the
magnetic field which violates Space's magnetic neutrality. Conversely,
if inside a wire loop the status quo of the magnetic field is changed,
an electric current is produced in the loop to oppose the changing of
the magnetic field's status quo.
Other examples of reactions to provocations. Striking a match. Striking
gun powder. Striking (in variety of ways) an unstable elements such as
uranium or plutonium. Triggering (provoking) fusion by fission.
Dropping a drop of water inside a sulfuric acid jar creates an enormous
amount of heat just to evaporate the intruding drop of water so that the
acid will maintain the status quo of its acid-concentricity. Conversely,
dropping a drop of acid in a jar of water will provoke the water to
dilute the drop of acid just not to allow the intruder to remain potent
even in a small part of the jar.
Finally, best examples of reaction to provocation are the human
beings. Some (especially unstable) personalities will violently react
to a provocation and explode vehemently.
Equivalence of Mass and Time
Probably the most used and the least understood item in science and in
any other endeavor of human intellect is the item called "Time".
Since time immemorial, the passage of Time was and still continues to be
measured by counting the periods of some periodic events. For this
purpose an immense number and varieties of clocks were and still continue to
be built. In fact, all kinds of clocks from water clocks, sand clocks
(hour-glasses) sun-dials to the atomic clocks (such as cesium clocks)
are still in use.
However, none of these clocks reveal the real nature of Time. Indeed,
clocks do not make Time.
Similarly, none of the scientific theories reveal the true nature of
Time. In the Relativity Theories of Einstein, Cosmos is treated as a
four dimensional Riemannian manifold and Time is considered as one of
these four dimensions on a par with the other three spatial dimensions.
This is a mere idealistic illusory paroxysm.
I do not believe that Time can be treated on a par with a spatial dimension.
Time moves forward irreversibly and irretrievably. I do not believe in
the reversal of Time and meeting the same Cleopatra lying on a sofa
letting an asp bite her breasts. Even if the planet Venus is reorbited
into an Earth-like orbit and creation is recreated that would not amount
to going back in Time since it would not be the same creation.
As everything else, Time also has the tendency of maintaining the status
quo of its present instant which is another way of saying that Time has
inertia, and as expounded below Time is another manifestation
of Mass and in fact Time is as much of a universal entity as Mass is.
I believe that Time is moved through the entire Cosmos irreversibly and
irretrievably at the expense of some irretrievable loss of Cosmic mass.
More specifically, I believe that :
(A) A certain m units of Cosmic mass is irretrievably lost to move Time
forward T units throughout the entire Cosmos
(to the units mentioned in (A), I will refer later).
(A) is the sense in which I have stated (in 1990) that there exists an
(A*) Equivalence of Mass and Time
Clearly, (A) violates the "Conservation of Energy and Mass" in
Cosmos. But the latter has never been proved to be valid. Also, (A)
violates the principle of "Constancy of the speed of light throughout
the Cosmos". I consider the principle of "Constancy of the speed of
light " to be merely an idealistic euphoria.
We may formulate statement (A*) mathematically, as follows:
Since, in view of (A*), I consider Time as being Mass. Therefore mass M
of the Cosmos and time T of the Cosmos must be measured in the same
units. We let
(1) Mo indicate the mass M of the Cosmos at T = 0,J i.e., at the Big Suck.
For the unit of measuring M and T, we choose the mass Mo of the
Cosmos at the Big Suck (i.e., at T = 0) and we call it 1 Abian. Thus,
(*) Mo = 1 Abian
If 1 Abian as given above is inconvenient for further calculations, we
may choose, say, Mo = 10^100 Abians.
In what follows, we let Mo be as defined by (1) without replacing it
with 1 Abian.
In view of (A), it is natural to assume that mass M of the Cosmos
decreases exponentially with the passage of Cosmic time T. Moreover,
since I believe that the Cosmic mass which is spent to move Time forward
is lost irretrievably, and
since I believe that Cosmos will never vanish , I assume that
(2) 0 < or = T < Mo and of course 0 <M < or = Mo
In view of the above considerations, and motivated by (A*), I propose
the following equation to describe the relationship between M and T :
(3) M = Mo exp (T / (kT - Mo)) with scalar k < 1
Let us examine equation (3). As, expected (3) implies M =Mo at T = 0.
Also, from k < 1 and (2) it follows that k T < T which again by
(2) implies that
T / (kT - Mo) < 0, for T > 0 in (3).
Therefore, M decreases exponentially with the passage of Cosmic Time T.
Let us observe that by (2) we have T < Mo. Nevertheless, substituting
T = Mo in (3) we obtain M = Mo exp (k - 1)^ (-1). This must be
interpreted as saying that the Cosmos will never vanish
and its mass will always be greater than Mo exp (k - 1)^(-1).
The value of the scalar k in (3) must be determined experimentally. Of
course difficulties are to be expected since (3) involves the mass M of
the Cosmos at various cosmic times T.
Next, based on (3), we give a mathematical formulation of m mentioned
in (A).
From (A) it follows that m = Mo - M where M is given by (3).
Thus,
(4) m = Mo - M = Mo(1 - exp (T / (kT - Mo))) with scalar k < 1.
We note that (4) expresses the equivalence of Mass and Time. For
instance, (4) says that m Abian units of Cosmic mass is spent to
create T Abian units of Cosmic Time.
In (3) we assumed that k < 1. It is quite appropriate to consider
the limit of M in (4) as k approaches 1 from the left, i.e.,
(5) M = lim Mo (exp (T / (kT - Mo))
k -->1-
From (5) it readily follows that
(6) M = Mo (exp(T /(T - Mo)) with M = O at T = Mo
There are many techniques to approximate function M(T) such as given
by (6), I chose (for reasons mentioned below)
_____
/
(7) M = Mo - \/ T Mo
But then according to (4), we let
(8) m = Mo - M
be m units of Cosmic mass which is converted into T units of Cosmic
TIME (both in Abian units).
But then from (7) and (6), it follows that
_____ _____
/ /
Mo - M = \/ T Mo or m = \/ T Mo or m^2 = T Mo
implying that
|--------------------------------------------|
(9) | T = A m^2 with A = 1/Mo |
|--------------------------------------------|
where Mo is the initial mass of the primeval Cosmic fireball and
Mo = 1 Abian unit and m is the Cosmic mass converted to Cosmic
time T all in Abian units.
It may seem strange that the approximating formula (9) is highly
preferred to the formula (6) which lead to the approximation (6).
But this only indicates that (6) served as an intellectual stimulant
and as an intuitive basis for developing the whole idea of the
Equivalence of TIME and mass.
The unrealistic indoctrination of considering Time on a par with a
spatial dimension must be abandoned once and for all.
As mentioned before, the abovementioned formulas of the Equivalence of
Mass and Time involve the mass M of Cosmos at any instant T of the
Cosmic Time. Thus,techniques should be developed to estimate the mass M
of the Cosmos at any T. In other words, a Cosmic massmeter should be
devised.
I would like to believe that the genius of mankind will be able to devise
a satisfactory Cosmic massmeter and Cosmic Time will be measured in
terms of the decreases indicated by the Cosmic massmeter.
-----------------
Department of Mathematics, Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50011, USA.
e-mail: ab...@iastate.edu FAX: 515-294-5454 Telephone: 515-294-1752
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIAN TIME-MASS EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T = A m^2 in Abian units.
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT TO STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS.
JOLT THE MOON TO JOLT THE EARTH INTO A SANER ORBIT.ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH(1990)
THERE WAS A BIG SUCK AND DILUTION OF PRIMEVAL MASS INTO THE VOID OF SPACE
Uncle Al
>
> --------
>
>
> EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND TIME
[snip]
Wrong units. Tilt.
Why don't you restrict yourelf to posting the Deja News reference number
and save servers all over the world the waste of memory attendent with
storing your extended repetitive protractedly disproven blather?
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
http://uncleal.within.net/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Marius Grobler
agree with you on some of it. It is not important that the theory is right
or wrong. What matters is that this philosophy is a base for all reason.
Philosophy is the tool through which we discover knowledge.
If my understanding is correct then the basis of this theory is a dynamic
equilibrium (a well researched and documented phenomenon in chemistry -
Uncle Al should know). I will not comment on the math since I believe that
it is too early to quantify an unknown quality. In stead I believe Time to
be more like the poles of a magnet, and what you described as the flux
between the poles.
Bret Wood
Marius Grobler wrote:
>
> I have read your "blather" as it was called by one critic, and I happen to
> agree with you on some of it. It is not important that the theory is right
> or wrong. What matters is that this philosophy is a base for all reason.
Reminds me of a joke.
The president of a prestigious university was talking to one of the
professors in the chemistry department about the latest request for
new lab equipment. He told the professor that "The mathematicians
don't need all this fancy equipment. They are happy with just a
pencil, pad of paper, and a wastebasket. And the philosophers don't
even need wastebaskets."
-Bret Wood
-bret...@cs.uoregon.edu
Mike Philbin
--------
Alexander Abian
Professor of Mathematics
Read it, but didn't understand or agree with all contents.....
I like the bit about THE BIG SUCK.
I tend to think of this concept not as a cataclismic one-off but a continual thing that happens to this day.
My take on this is that all atoms are sucking space into themselves. This is why things attract and why red-shift seems to show the universe moving away from itself.
It is, at the atomic level, so my story goes......
I have also tied mass into time ... but more like I have tied solidity of atoms into time. An atom, as it sucks space into its origin, acts like a black hole in that at the 'event horizon' relativistically speaking time stands still. As standing still time#1 (an atom) cannot pass through standing still time#2 (a colliding atom) the two atoms seem solid and betray some kooky contents like the protons, neutrons and electrons of contemporary physics.
Whatever, I will doggedly plough my own trench ... I know you understand that!
cheerz
mike
-- let "what?" be his shiny new catchall
Bernard HP Gilroy, maximum proconsul
<bret...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Marius Grobler wrote:
>>
>> I have read your "blather" as it was called by one critic, and I happen to
>> agree with you on some of it. It is not important that the theory is right
>> or wrong. What matters is that this philosophy is a base for all reason.
OK, I'm probably asking for trouble, but...
How can you post to a science newsgroup and make the bold
statement "It is not important that the theory is right or wrong..."?
Bret Wood
Just a small (yet significant to me) point:
I didn't say that "It is not important that the theory is right or
wrong." I was poking fun at the (apparent) philosopher who made
that statement.
You got the attributions wrong.
-Bret Wood
-bret...@cs.uoregon.edu
Jasvinder Kandula
Um, personally I don"t think it matters whether a theory is right or
wrong...only that it has justifiable and as few arbitrary assumptions
as possible, and that it approximates our percievable reality to an
increasingly more precise extent.
Jas
--
Already the evening sun is setting the west,
Shadows deepen in the valley,
The cries of the homing birds grow faint.
Komparu-Zenchiku
Bret Wood
Jasvinder Kandula wrote:
>
> Um, personally I don"t think it matters whether a theory is right or
> wrong...only that it has justifiable and as few arbitrary assumptions
> as possible, and that it approximates our percievable reality to an
> increasingly more precise extent.
I believe that when a scientist says that a certain theory is "wrong,"
what is meant is that it doesn't satisfy the criteria you just stated.
Certainly, the ultimate nature of reality is a question which is
not addressable by the purely empirical nature of the scientific
method. "Right" or "wrong" (as far as science is concerned) is
always a question of how well a theory agrees with observable facts.
Any question which cannot be addressed by direct or indirect
observation is beyond the realm of science.
Any concept of fundamental "rightness" or "wrongness" which goes
beyond what I mentioned above is really irrelevant to scientific
studies. So I guess I agree with you in a sense. It doesn't
matter if a theory is "real," or an approximation, but it does
matter if the theory models our observable world to an acceptable
degree.
-Bret Wood
-bret...@cs.uoregon.edu