DISTANCE IS A MANIFESTATION OF MASS
Alexander Abian
People have exuberant climatic ecstasy over Einstein's definition of
TIME as "that which a clock measures". I have given definition of TIME
T as that Cosmic mass m which is spent to overpower the tendency of
maintaining the status quo of the present instance of the Cosmos.
And I have given expressed the Equivalence of TIME AND MASS BY
T = A m^2
Now, let people have the same exuberant climactic ecstasy over the
following definition of Distance in term of Mass
Distance between points A and B is that energy (and hence Mass)
which requires to move the ray of light from A to B.
Or if you want a much more cynical exuberance:
Distance between points A and B is the mass (of standardized)
ruler which can be put between the points A and B.
In other words, the following Einsteinian definition:
Distance is the mass of the ruler which measures it
Now let the people have the exuberant climactic ecstasy!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Charles W. Shults III
>
> ---------
>
> People have exuberant climatic ecstasy over Einstein's definition of
> TIME as "that which a clock measures".
I live in "climatic ecstacy" in central Florida.
Last winter was really nice!
> I have given definition of TIME
> T as that Cosmic mass m which is spent to overpower the tendency of
> maintaining the status quo of the present instance of the Cosmos.
> And I have given expressed the Equivalence of TIME AND MASS BY
>
> T = A m^2
The problem, Al, is that this definition is not
commensurate with the accepted definition in some
ways. Well, all ways. I'll tell you what time is
in a moment. Er, sorry about that.
>
> Now, let people have the same exuberant climactic ecstasy over the
> following definition of Distance in term of Mass
>
> Distance between points A and B is that energy (and hence Mass)
> which requires to move the ray of light from A to B.
But if points A and B are gravitationally
equipotential, no energy is expended getting
the light from one to the other. Space is
pretty frictionless.
>
> Or if you want a much more cynical exuberance:
>
> Distance between points A and B is the mass (of standardized)
> ruler which can be put between the points A and B.
But a skinnier ruler will probably have less
mass. I like a fat ruler, which has enough mass
to suck the photons into itself.
>
> In other words, the following Einsteinian definition:
>
> Distance is the mass of the ruler which measures it
>
> Now let the people have the exuberant climactic ecstasy!
Now I will tell you what time is. It is the
state of non-reversible operations that occur in
the universe. Information is the key here. When
any interaction in the universe occurs, it can be
seen that some results are non-reversible because
the previous state information is lost.
When information is lost, the reaction cannot be
made to proceed accurately in reverse. This loss of
information is called "entropy". When the reaction
cannot be reversed or you can't backtrack the system
to a previous state from a known state, the past is
irretrievably lost.
It's pretty simple really. To make the Abian unit
a useful consideration, you need to prove that data
is equivalent to mass. One the other hand, let's not
even go there! Sorry I mentioned it...
Cheers!
Chip Shults
Scott L. Holmes
> Now I will tell you what time is. It is the
>state of non-reversible operations that occur in
>the universe. Information is the key here. When
>any interaction in the universe occurs, it can be
>seen that some results are non-reversible because
>the previous state information is lost.
> When information is lost, the reaction cannot be
>made to proceed accurately in reverse. This loss of
>information is called "entropy". When the reaction
>cannot be reversed or you can't backtrack the system
>to a previous state from a known state, the past is
>irretrievably lost.
> It's pretty simple really. To make the Abian unit
>a useful consideration, you need to prove that data
>is equivalent to mass. One the other hand, let's not
>even go there! Sorry I mentioned it...
Charles,
Um, this idea of information being mentioned as part of a definition of Time
is very interesting to me. Your explanation of entropy also in association
with Time leads me to ask, where can I go to learn more? I've been trying
to form some hypothesis in my head over the years based on a lifetime
working with computers. Um, I'm not a physicist or mathematician. But I
love to read Heinz Pagels.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Scott
Scott L. Holmes
Scott L. Holmes
mark brown
but how does that reflect on mass,
between time and space: i.e.,
what mass is on the clock,
...
should we consider time to be subset of space altogether,
...
a sort of watered-down, thinned-out space,
...
or retain origin perceptual cost-effective reference
to the conventional "expanses" (lengths) of
time noted and measured on the clocks of the day?
...
unless one retains the ease and deftness of everyone's understanding as
regards conventionalist time, seperated from space,
stuff could get multiple, fragmented, and bizarre fast (psychotic) unless
the people can use 3-space dim's and 3-time dim's (one is a-ok too) with
special cases requiring a lot of imaginary clocks. but still, what is the
time, is it space itself, or seperate like sane thought? if time is equal
literally not figuratively to mass then please explain. i can (do)
understand the idiom, "length" of time, like most everyone does.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Evan Thompson
> > T = A m^2
So one Abian is a unit of time-per-mass? "Second-grams-squared"? What
exactly would you have us apply such a sily unit to, anyway?