Septenary Units (split from Different Planck Units)

[TurricaN]

What is your native language? Are you by any chance a speaker of some slavic language like Russian?

My native language is Polish, but better we'll continue using English for including non-Polish people in discussion.

 

Now it seems TurricaN has decided to go somewhere else..

I think at the PF thread they have not guessed that he has some kind of religious motivation connected with numerology, so he may actually get more help.

This is not occult numerology, This is God's native septenary system.

 

But the decimal system was used long before the French Revolution. Iran, China, Egypt, India, and Greece all had pre-biblical decimal systems.

They were pagans, thus decimal system is not obligatory.

 

Does this mean, since you start with the index finger, that the pinkie (smallest) is the holy finger, much as the seventh day is holy? What are we commanded to do to remember the pinkie and keep it holy?

Pinkie isn't specifically holy. One can count in septenary from pinkie to index, or from index to pinkie.

 

So the Jews and Catholics used this system, but can you show me where they were actually commanded to use it? Something from the Bible and not just pointing to the handy fingers + between fingers - thumb justification that is obvious to... well, only you?

This justification was technically reconstructed by me from hand structure. Also septenary grouping of prayers, days, weeks, omers, years, sabbaticals and jubilees are plastered elsewhere in Bible.

 

Until the Jews decide to stick with the old covenant and fail to find the Messiah that the Christians did. Those systems seem kind of contradictory and both sides have their reasons....

Jewish faith was incorporated into Catholicism, not abolished, thus septenary system is still valid.

 

I still can't find reference to that commandment.

Reference to third commandment about keeping septenary Sabbath is here: http://www.vatican.net/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm and too in word Sabbath itself, that is cognant to Adamic Proto-Indo-European *septmos - seven.

 

I wasn't even aware this was a sin. Who knew?

Original sin existed, because for example we're mortals with confused tongues, instead of being immortal with only Adamic PIE tongue, that is consequence of original sin. This bad state will be fully reverted by God after Apocalypse.

 

My 24 hour day is 3*8 (work/play/sleep), 360 degrees is usually 4*45 when I'm cutting wood and 60 minutes is 4*15 when I'm working or driving. I guess I just naturally stay away from anything satanic.

This babylonian system is satanic, because is based on 6 and babylonians were occult at their very core. Sample decimal 10 hour day that is 2*5 (activity/sleep), 400 grads that are usually 8*50 when I'm cutting wood or 4*100 when I'm using compass or geodesic theodolite for N,S,W,E, and too sample 100 decimal minutes that are 4*25 when I'm working or driving - are more logical from decimal point of view.

 

These Time and length are two different types of physical quantity. the conversion formulas you repeatedly ask for do not exist.

These converting formulas between various physical units and dimensions exists - example here: http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/energy.html

 

How to transform conversion formula that converts from hertz to kilogram (as here: http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=1&From=hz&To=kg&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor) into conversion formula that converts from second to kilogram?

[Martin]

My native language is Polish,

...

 

How to transform conversion formula that converts from hertz to kilogram (as here: http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=1&From=hz&To=kg&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor) into conversion formula that converts from second to kilogram?

 

I'm familiar with the nist table of energy-equivalents conversion factors.

This explains how they arrive at the equivalences:

http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Info/Constants/basis.html

 

This is a pdf file that prints out the whole table of energy equivalences:

http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Document/factors2002.pdf

 

OK so you know how to "convert" from kilogram to Hz

 

and you want to "convert" from kilogram to seconds.

 

So you just need to "convert" from Hz to seconds. what is the difficulty?

 

======================

 

Turrica, does it seem puzzling to you that a large mass should correspond to a small interval of time?

 

Does it seem strange to you that a smaller mass converts to a larger interval of time? Or does that seem natural to you?

 

I would like to know what contradiction you see, if you see some contradiction.

[daniel_haxby]

This babylonian system is satanic, because is based on 6 and babylonians were occult at their very core.

 

The babylonians had a complex but comparatively sophisticated (for its time) method of division, which used lots of factors and sums of fractions. They used base 60 notation because 60 has a lot of factors, so it gives you a lot of fractions. While we cannot be sure why they settled on base 60, since there is no historical evidence for divine or demonic instruction to their engineers, scribes or mathematiciens, it would be simpler to assume their choice was pragmatic in view of their arithmetical tools. If you have any sources to back up your assertion, being interested in the history of maths, I'd love to see them

[TurricaN]

Bible calls all what is babylonian occult, magic and esoteric, thus connected with the devils, because of babylonian addict to astrology and sorcery. Additional coincidence of facts that 666 is number of the beast and that 6*4 = 24, 6*10 = 60, and 6*6*10 = 360 proves diabolic origins of babylonian civilization and their measures used for diabolical purposes. Bible treats 'Merodach' and 'Baal' as devils themselves. That's shame that we Christians adopted these units of the beast instead of holy God's septenary system, that I'm trying to reconstruct by deriving all units from second, and finally from daynight.

 

I see following contradiction: Between h/kB [K/Hz] and (c^5)/(G*k) [K/s] exist inconsistency in converting, because if 1Hz=1s, then conversions should be the same, but I give http://www.google.pl/search?hl=en&q=h%2Fk&btnG=Szukaj&lr= and http://www.google.pl/search?hl=en&q=%28c%5E5%29%2F%28G*k%29&btnG=Search that are not even their reciprocals.

 

I need ready to use formula that converts directly seconds into kilograms, because I want to use it in making my Excel table of septenary units.

[Martin]

...

I see following contradiction: Between h/kB [K/Hz] and (c^5)/(G*k) [K/s] exist inconsistency in converting, because if 1Hz=1s, then conversions should be the same, but I give http://www.google.pl/search?hl=en&q=h%2Fk&btnG=Szukaj&lr= and http://www.google.pl/search?hl=en&q=%28c%5E5%29%2F%28G*k%29&btnG=Search that are not even their reciprocals.

...

 

this is not about kilograms. This contradiction is about two different ways of connecting Temperature with Time. A ratio of Kelvin with Hz, and a ratio of Kelvin with second.

I know these two ratios. Both are correct. The only way to harmonize or resolve this is to use Planck units of Temperature and Time. (Planck units are what the universe points to as natural and uncontradictory in this way)

 

But you said you had a contradiction about KILOGRAMS and time. Please tell me that contradiction. (I think it will turn out the same way as with temperature.)

 

I need ready to use formula that converts directly seconds into kilograms, because I want to use it in making my Excel table of septenary units

 

You said you found a contradiction when you searched for a conversion between second and kilogram. Please say explicitly what this was.

[TurricaN]

My contradiction about conversion from seconds into kilograms is as follows:

 

These two formulas:

 

c³/G as here: http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=c%5E3%2FG&btnG=Szukaj&lr=

 

and h/c² as here: http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=h%2Fc%5E2&lr=

 

have contradictory results in conversion from second to kilogram and from hertz to kilogram, because they are not even their reciprocals. I prefer NIST formulas due to their better cross consistency, for example with conversion formula from seconds into meters that uses c, and thus I ask you how to transform this NIST conversion formula from hertzes into kilograms from here: http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=1&From=hz&To=kg&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor into NIST-derived formula that directly converts from seconds to kilograms?

[Martin]

I predicted you would encounter contradiction here:

 

To get stuck on mass is not surprising, since there is a unique mass and a unique unit of time for which a certain contradiction is resolved

(and this is one reason why one should not use Earth days or seconds as unit of time).

 

If M is any quantity of mass then one can define two contrasting amounts of time

 

hbar/Mc² (could be associated with the name Arthur Holly Compton---a time related to the Compton wavelength.)

 

GM/c³ (could be associated with the name Karl Schwarzschild---a time related to the Schwarzschild radius of black hole.)

 

there is only one unique quantity M of mass for which these two times (the Compton time and the Schwarzschild time) are the same, and this defines a unique interval of time as well.

 

You can see in my post these two conversion factors hbar/c²

 

and G/c³. these are essentially the same as what you have written just now. There is a minor difference because I always use hbar instead of h. hbar = h/2pi is the so-called "Dirac's constant". Many people find it more convenient. But that is a trivial difference---just a factor of 2pi.

 

There is a physical reason why there MUST be these two different ways to relate mass to time. The apparent contradiction which you have found is not a real contradiciton, but a necessity.

 

The two factors which you want to be the same number actually ARE the same number when one uses the system of units provided for us by the universe and nature.

 

You complain that when you write the two factors in metric they are not equal and "not even reciprocals". If you insist of using metric expressions you will always have ugly contradictions. If you use natural units both those factors have the numerical value ONE and they are both equal and also reciprocals of each other, as you wished them to be.

[Martin]

My contradiction about conversion from seconds into kilograms is as follows:

 

These two formulas:

 

c³/G

...

...

and h/c²

...

...

 

 

You would find the same contradiction in converting between mass and LENGTH by these factors

 

G/c²

 

and hbar/c

 

There is a universal relation between the size of a mass and the size of a BLACK HOLE with exactly that mass.

If M is a mass, then multiply by the first factor and get

GM/c² which is half the radius of a normal black hole with that mass.

 

There is also a universal relation between the mass of a particle and the size of the quantum wave associated to it----it is a wavelength that indicates the physical extent of the particle viewed as a wave. they call it "Compton wavelength" of particle of a certain mass.

 

If M is the mass of a particle, then hbar/cM is the Compton wavelength of the particle (some people use h instead of hbar and they say h/cM.

 

for Nature to work properly there must be both things a black hole should have a size and the more massive the bigger it should be, but also a particle should have a quantum wave which is more spread out for less massive particles and more concentrated for the more massive ones.

 

these two things work in opposite directions. As the mass gets bigger, the radius of the black hole gets bigger, but the quantum wave gets more concentrated and less spread-out.

 

So you will always see this kind of "contradiction". There is a physical reason. It is a necessary thing built into Nature.

 

The Planck mass (about 22 micrograms) is the only mass M for which these two lengths are the same. That is, it is the unique M for which

 

GM/c² = hbar/cM

 

(Jacques, I'm having a bad morning and making algebra mistakes. Let me check this)

[Jacques]

How does the Plank mass defined ? Is it the solution to that equality who define the Plank mass ?

Thanks

[Martin]

How does the Plank mass defined ? Is it the solution to that equality who define the Plank mass ?

Thanks

 

yes, the solution to that equality defines Planck mass

GM/c² = hbar/cM

 

M² = hbar c/G

[TurricaN]

How to transform this NIST conversion formula (1 Hz)h/c² = x kg from hertzes into kilograms from here: http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=1&From=hz&To=kg&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor into NIST-derived formula (1 s)? = x kg that gives identical result, but directly converts from seconds to kilograms? '?' sign denotes unknown formula, please give me this formula.

[Jacques]

Thanks Martin

Is there any use or meaning of the Plank mass or is it only a curiosity ?

If I remember correctly the Plank lenght is the smallest possible lenght, but the Planks mass is surely not.

Also trying to convert kg to second isn't it like trying to convert apple into a car ? I can find a number X the number of apple that can fit in a car, but that number X doesn't mean that if I have X apple it's the same has a car...

[Meir Achuz]

Thanks Martin

Is there any use or meaning of the Plank mass or is it only a curiosity ?

If I remember correctly the Plank lenght is the smallest possible lenght,

Neither the P mass nor the P length is the smallest. They are just sizes that are convenient unitgs for some applications.

[Royston]

Thanks Martin

Is there any use or meaning of the Plank mass or is it only a curiosity ?

If I remember correctly the Plank lenght is the smallest possible lenght, but the Planks mass is surely not.

 

The Planck length is just the smallest workable unit, so anything smaller I guess would be speculative. The Planck energy is equivalent to 10^19 Gev, so the Planck mass is not small per se, just indescribably dense.

 

[math]M_{pl} = \sqrt\frac{hc}{2\pi G}[/math]

 

The Planck mass is defined as above, note the gravitational constant, C (which is obviously also a constant) and the Planck constant are required. Not sure if this helps at all ?

 

Just some extra info, the Planck time is just how long it takes light to travel the Planck length...so you can start to see how all these relationships tie in.

[Martin]

Someone asked about relevance of some Planck things.

 

Planck density has started to come up in cosmology. the planck length defines a unit volume and then you can imagine a planck mass compressed down into that planck volume-----or the equivalent energy as radiation compressed into that volume----and that is planck unit density.

 

Ashtekar's group at Penn State have been running computer simulations of the quantum "bounce" that replaces the bigbang singularity in quantum cosmology.

 

He gave a talk at the Santa Barbara workshop on quantum replacement of the spacetime singularities, just last month. I watched the video.

 

One thing they found was that the bounce, where quantum gravity effects become important and gravity changes into a repelling force, always tends to happen when the density gets to be around 0.8 of Planck.

 

they ran lots of different models, different cases with different assumptions about the universe, and it always seems to happen that in the collapse (prior to the bigbang) the density NEVER QUITE GETS UP TO PLANCK. It only gets to like 80 percent of Planck and then the quantum corrections to usual gravity begin to dominate and the collapse turns into an expansion and the big bang picture takes over.

 

in case anyone wants to watch.

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/singular_m07/ashtekar/

 

this will give you thumbnails of his slides (which summarize what he has to say and show graphs) and also give links to the video (or if you prefer to just listen, the audio)

 

This was found analytically in a simplified case already in 2001 by Bojowald.

the computer models are used to extend it to more general situations that are hard to treat analytically. The bounce has been studied a lot for the past 6 years and in every case I saw, by whatever method, by whatever researchers (there are a couple of dozen people involved by now) it always seems to come out that the bounce happens when the density gets up in the Planck range.

 

So far these are theoretical studies based mainly on LQG or the related AQG (loop qg or a variant called algebraic qg), and predicitons of the basic theory still have to be tested. So this is not something to believe in!

It is just a sign that there might be something real about Planck scale quantities. they might have some real role, and not be just convenient units for quantum cosmologists to use. Might.

[TurricaN]

Because of lack of proper answer, I ask again how to transform NIST conversion formula (1 Hz)h/c² = x kg from hertzes into kilograms from here: http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=1&From=hz&To=kg&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor into NIST-derived formula (1 s)? = x kg that gives identical result, but directly converts from seconds to kilograms? '?' sign denotes unknown formula, please give me this formula, I need it in my Excel table of septenary units.

[Royston]

One thing they found was that the bounce, where quantum gravity effects become important and gravity changes into a repelling force, always tends to happen when the density gets to be around 0.8 of Planck.

 

Hi Martin, if you don't mind, I'm going to start another thread on this subject...it often keeps me up at night.

 

I'll give it some thought this evening (over a bottle of wine) and hope I can start some discussion on this critical density, possible explantions for dark energy, and quantum goings on 'around' the planck scale. Although I'm nowhere near the level to understanding QG geometry, (so probably sticking my neck out) it would be good to throw a few ideas around (based on current cosmology...so extending on ideas, not completely speculating) and see if anyone else wants to join in.

 

EDIT: sorry to TurricaN for going off topic.

[Martin]

Because of lack of proper answer, I ask again how to transform NIST conversion formula (1 Hz)h/c² = x kg from hertzes into kilograms from here: http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=1&From=hz&To=kg&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor into NIST-derived formula (1 s)? = x kg that gives identical result, but directly converts from seconds to kilograms? '?' sign denotes unknown formula, please give me this formula, I need it in my Excel table of septenary units.

 

I see that what you mean by the '?' sign, in all your posts is always some combination of the fundamental constants------like for example h/c²

is a combination of two fundamental constants, h and c.

 

You call that kind of algebraic expression, like for example h/c², a "formula".

 

Well suppose I gave you a formula that did what you ask.

(1 s)? = x kg

(1 Hz)h/c² = x kg

Because you say you want "identical result" we have that x = x, it is the same number in both cases. So therefore

(1 s)? = (1 Hz)h/c²

But you know that 1 Hz = 1/s

So therefore we can multiply on both sides of equation by s.

 

(1 s²)? = h/c²

 

Now ? is some combination of fundamental constants (some or all of h, c, G, k etc) so we can DIVIDE both sides by that ? formula.

 

This gives us 1 s² equal to a combination of fundamental constants!

 

1 s² = (h/c²)/?

 

If we could do this, then we could even take square root of both sides and have the second written as a combination of natural constants.

 

1 s = ((h/c²)/?)^1/2 = sqrt ( (h/c²)/?)

 

BUT THE TIME UNIT THAT CAN BE WRITTEN THIS WAY IS NOT THE SECOND, it is a different unit of time which physicists sometimes call God's unit.

 

If you want your unit of time to be written as a combination of natural constants then you should use this unit

 

sqrt (Gh/c⁵ )

 

This unit of time will not change, as long as the natural constants remain the same.

 

The length of time called the "day" or as you say "daynight" is not a steady unit because the rotation of the earth is always changing. It is slowing down in an irregular fashion. So the period of the "day" is always getting longer.

[Martin]

TurricaN, what you are asking is equivalent to asking for a "formula" for the unit of time.

 

But the second cannot be written as a simple combination of fundamental constants. So the second is not good for your purposes.

 

Here is a unit of time that can be written easily in terms of constants:

 

http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?eqplkt

[TurricaN]

You misunderstood me. As you see:

 

(1 s)? = x kg

and

(1 Hz)h/c² = x kg

 

you wil see that I wanted to place in place of ? needed conversion formula from seconds to kilograms, that is equivalent of h/c² that converts from hertzes to kilograms, but stays multiplied by (1 s) instead of (1 Hz)

 

I want to get formula in shape:

(1 s)c²/h = x kg ; (c²/h is wrong, I placed this as example to get you my idea what I want)

[Jacques]

Sorry but I can't get it. For me you cannot convert kg to seconds. You can get the Compton time for a mass with your formula, but it is not a conversion from time to mass. Am I missing something here ? Is it only a language shortcut ?

Thanks

[Martin]

You misunderstood me.

 

I understood you exactly. Read my post #43 again carefully.

 

What you just wrote assures me that I have understood correctly.

As you see:

 

(1 s)? = x kg

and

(1 Hz)h/c² = x kg

 

you wil see that I wanted to place in place of ? needed conversion formula from seconds to kilograms, that is equivalent of h/c² that converts from hertzes to kilograms, but stays multiplied by (1 s) instead of (1 Hz)

 

I want to get formula in shape:

(1 s)c²/h = x kg ; (c²/h is wrong, I placed this as example to get you my idea what I want)

 

I can only repeat what I said in post #43. If you HAD such a "formula" (a combination of constants like c²/h, but not that) then by some simple algebra I can show you that you would have a "formula" for one second.

 

but there is no simple formula that gives the second. It is not a NATURAL unit of time. You cannot make a simple combination of the fundamental constants (like c, and h, and G) which gives one second.

 

If you want to do that kind of thing then you need to be using what physicists call "God's units"-----that is, natural units. If you do not you will always meet with this kind of contradiction and frustration.

[TurricaN]

I can only repeat what I said in post #43. If you HAD such a "formula" (a combination of constants like c²/h, but not that) then by some simple algebra I can show you that you would have a "formula" for one second.

 

but there is no simple formula that gives the second. It is not a NATURAL unit of time. You cannot make a simple combination of the fundamental constants (like c, and h, and G) which gives one second.

 

I don't want make seconds from kilogram, but I want make kilograms from second.

 

Thus please show me by some simple algebra that "formula" for transformation of one second into given amount of kilograms.

 

I made nearly such formula in form:

=((1 second)*(c^2/h))^-1

but how to make it in form (1 second)*(transformation of right side from directly above formula)

[Martin]

Sorry but I can't get it. For me you cannot convert kg to seconds. You can get the Compton time for a mass with your formula, but it is not a conversion from time to mass. Am I missing something here ? Is it only a language shortcut ?

Thanks

 

He does have a language problem. In fact you are quite right: you cannot convert kg to seconds because one is mass and one is time.

 

but what he wants to do is to find an expression involving the fundamental constants that he can multiply a second by and get some number of kilograms. what he calls a "formula" is an algebraic combination of constants, like c²/h.

 

This is easy to do (but because he uses man-made units he gets a contradiction.)

 

To do it you can multiply the second by c, and get a length about 300,000 kilometers

and then one can multiply this length by c²/G and get a mass which is around 200,000 times the mass of the sun. And that is some number of kilograms.

 

But he doesn't LIKE that number

He doesnt like it because it is not consistent with the calculation he did to "convert" Hz to kilogram. That was where he used h/c² as his "formula" (i.e. an algebraic combination of constants) to "convert" with.

 

The reason that it is not consistent is that he is using bad (unnatural) units. he should not be using quantities like "second" or "day" or "Herz" because they are artificial and lead to contradiction.

 

If he would use the natural unit of time he could "convert" things consistently and not get these contradictions that he doesnt like.

[Martin]

 

Thus please show me by some simple algebra that "formula" for fransformation of one second into given amount of kilograms.

 

Of course, didn't I already write it for you several times?

 

c³/G

 

if you multiply this by one second, then you will get (I estimate) a mass in kilograms which is around 200,000 times the mass of the sun.