E = mD

[Dov]

E = m(1+D)

 

In an earlier posting I wrote that I was prompted to tackle the subject of "Time" by a vague idea that whereas Time is a real factor for living entities, in the case of Universal matters a Time element is proportional to distance and does not warrant a separate dimensional term...

This thought still bothers me. What say you ?

 

Elaboration:

 

Suppose that in E = mC^2 FOR THE WHOLE UNIVERSE the E is constant. This mandates that since C is constant also m is constant. This bothers me.

 

Now, if the right side of the equation is m(1+D), where D= Distance from point of Big Bang, then both m and D vary continuously, and the original initial m decreases continuously as D increases with expansion. This appears rational and true-to-Universe, and it implies that eventually nearly all mass will be so diminshed (and also diluted localy) that it would practically be zero by human reckonning.

 

I hope we tackle this Universe-Size matter first, and consequently examine if/how it is applicable to subUniverse-size matters.

[ydoaPs]

uh, mass is not constant. it is a variable. that is why energy changes.

[Dov]

I'm starting the above case with the original apple that big banged. It consisted of all the energy/mass of our universe.

 

Let's first agree on it, then turn our attention to its sub-units...

[fuhrerkeebs]

E = mD

 

In an earlier posting I wrote that I was prompted to tackle the subject of "Time" by a vague idea that whereas Time is a real factor for living entities' date=' in the case of Universal matters a Time element is proportional to distance and does not warrant a separate dimensional term...

This thought still bothers me. What say you ?

 

Elaboration:

 

Suppose that in E = mC^2 FOR THE WHOLE UNIVERSE the E is constant. This mandates that both m and C are constant. This bothers me. Now, if the right side of the equation is mD (D= Distance from point of Big Ban) then both m and D vary continuously, and the original initial m decreases continuously as D increases with expansion. This appears rational and true-to-Universe, and it implies that eventually nearly all mass will be so diminshed (and also diluted localy) that it would practically be zero by human reckonning.

 

I hope we tackle this Universe-Size matter first, and consequently examine if/how it is applicable to subUniverse-size matters.[/quote']

 

 

I don't know where you get off saying that E=mD...I see now way of justifying this at all.

[ydoaPs]

I'm starting the above case with the original apple that big banged. It consisted of all the energy/mass of our universe.

 

Let's first agree on it' date=' then turn our attention to its sub-units...[/quote']

 

do you even know what the big bang was supposed to be?

[Dov]

I don't know where you get off saying that E=mD...I see no way of justifying this at all.

 

Yes. How arrogant! (or how ignorant!)

[Dov]

do you even know what the big bang was supposed to be?

 

Eager and looking forward to learn what the big bang was supposed to be and what are its implications re the relationship between energy and matter and time-distance.

[Dov]

Universe E, m and D.

 

I posted this also in Astronomy and Cosmology, soliciting also there...

 

Still hoping to get some comments on the rationale of the following

relationship between the universal energy-mass-expansion:

 

For the total universe energy E on the left side of the equation

let the right side of the equation be the sum of values of m(1+D),

where D is the Distance from point of Big Bang and the sum is for

all (spatial) values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

 

Both m and D vary continuously. From D=0 singular m decreases

continuously as D increases with expansion ( and vice versa?).

This appears rational and true-to-universe, and implies that

eventually nearly all mass will be so diminished (and also diluted

localy) that it would practically be zero by our reckonning.

 

 

Is'nt it possible that such a relationship may offer plausible solutions

to some presently puzzling cosmological questions ?!

[CPL.Luke]

I personally don't like that as that would mean to me there wouldn't be much mass in the universe at present.

 

I think that the main problem would be at the start of the big bang you would have a problem where the universe has only expanded a few cubic plank lengths (is that a correct notation?) so that the mass would be so vast that I personally think that the universe would have collapsed immediatly because of general relativity.

 

i know virtually nothing of the math here so I could be impossibly off, but if your trying to prove that relationship that you discribe, you must then try to work out a problem like the early moments of the big bang.

[Dov]

Please look up this brief explanation of gravitational singularity:

 

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Gravitational_singularity

[CPL.Luke]

I undrstand that general relativity can't predict at that scale but I don't see how your equation solves it

 

perhaps you could elaborate further

 

 

also what units would you measure distance in?

[Dov]

Please look at Astronomy and Cosmology, "Universe E, m and D.".

 

I reckon we might worry about the units of distance, mass and energy if/after we 're convinced of the validity of the suggested relationship and if/after affixing in the cosmos a guesstimated big-bang location...

[CPL.Luke]

well all of the information to do a thought experiment using that model is already available. ie. universe is already some 13 billion light years across thats known. from that just create a thought experiment for a universe with a set amount of energy, you could look up the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. then figure out units for distance.

[Dov]

I humbly feel that it is not so simple to do the thought experiment you suggest. For an appreciation of the difficulties in setting up such a thought experiment please look at

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html

that deals with the "size of the universe".

 

I also humbly suggest that our this forum is not a "peer forum" of experts scientifically knowledgeable in any specific scientific domain, capable of valid analysis and assessment. I am resigned to accept that we are a large community of individuals of vastly varying knowledge/experience levels unified in an urge/eagerness to exchange thoughts and reactions and comments with each other even if not professional scientists/experts.

[CPL.Luke]

why not just ceate a fictional universe with a set amount of energy with a set expansion variable (cosmological constant)

 

 

see if your universe would collapse in its early moments. then see if it would do the same with more or less energy, (or a stronger expansion)

 

the biggest problem that I see with your equation however, is in calculating the energy of small objects, such as a rock or what have you, i couldn't see a particle on earth knowing how big the universe is.

[revprez]

I think this thread belongs in pseudoscience.

 

Rev Prez

[Ophiolite]

Dov, I think the problem is captured in the opening sentence of your opening post. The added emphasis is mine.

E = m(1+D)

 

In an earlier posting I wrote that I was prompted to tackle the subject of "Time" by a vague idea .........

I'm not at all clear what you are trying to achieve or in what way your ideas offer any imrpovement over current thinking. Don't get me wrong' date=' you may have something, but as you are currently expressing it, it is not making [b']any [/b]connection with me.

[Dov]

I repeat :

 

In an earlier posting I wrote that I was prompted to tackle the subject of "Time" by a vague idea ( "vague", because it's mine) that whereas Time is a factor for living entities, in the case of Cosmic matters it is Distance from the big-bang that is the functional factor, yet we use the local living organism term Time that happens to be proportional to distance. Relating cosmic energy to cosmic mass and to distance travelled from the big bang does not warrant a time dimension term but only a distance term.

 

Thus in E(cosmic) = m(cosmic) X C^2 FOR THE WHOLE UNIVERSE, cosmic E is constant. This mandates that, since C, a time-based term, is constant, also m is constant. This bothers me because I do'nt think that cosmic m is constant.

 

However, if the right side of the equation is m(1+D), where D= sum total of distances from point of big-bang of the sum total of m's, then both m and D vary continuously, and the original singular initial m decreases continuously as D increases with expansion. This appears rational and true-to-Universe, and it implies that eventually nearly all mass will be so diminshed (and also diluted localy) that it would practically be zero by human reckonning.

 

I hope that this repeated explanation clears my point and solicitation of comments.

[CPL.Luke]

well could that mean that in our current universe You were one "unit" away from the big bang, mass would be much higher?

 

I will repeat my point

 

you can't say E=md for the whole universe without having implications for smaller areas of the universe. so for the earth you would plug in E(of earth)=m(assume a value) which means that if you launched a space probe in a direction away from the point of the big bang at a very high velocity. its mass would continue to dwindle. so for a rest mass you would continue to get a smaller and smaller value. (this does not sit right with me)

 

thus the area at the center of the universe should hold a very strong gravitational pull. (universe would collapse)

 

plus how would you handle the rest of relativity.

 

would you say that, E^2=(md)^2+(pd)^2 ?

[Dov]

I mean that just prior to the big bang E was equal to m(1+D) i.e. D was zero and E and mass were equal, so mass was at imagine its then density !

 

And I mean that it is much too early and irrelevant to consider, in this regard, a probe into our solar system space because a space is not a space is not a space, as spaces most probably differ from each other depending on where they are...as here is what surrounds us (copied from a good source):

 

- Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 100,000 light-years across and 7,000

light-years thick.

- Milky Way Galaxy contains between 100 and 400 billion stars.

- Milky Way is one of a group of 30 galaxies called the "Local Group".

- The Local Group is one of dozens of small clusters centered on a large

collection of more than 2,500 galaxies called the Virgo Cluster.

- These galaxies and other galaxy groups form a "Supercluster".

- The Universe contains millions of such Superclusters.

- Closest major spiral galaxy to our Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy.

- Closest star to our Solar System is Proxima Centauri, about 4.3 light-years

away.

- Closest star-forming region in our Milky Way is the Orion Nebula, 1,500 light-

years away.

[CPL.Luke]

And I mean that it is much too early and irrelevant to consider, in this regard, a probe into our solar system space because a space is not a space is not a space, as spaces most probably differ from each other depending on where they are...as here is what surrounds us (copied from a good source):

 

- Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 100,000 light-years across and 7,000

light-years thick.

- Milky Way Galaxy contains between 100 and 400 billion stars.

- Milky Way is one of a group of 30 galaxies called the "Local Group".

- The Local Group is one of dozens of small clusters centered on a large

collection of more than 2,500 galaxies called the Virgo Cluster.

- These galaxies and other galaxy groups form a "Supercluster".

- The Universe contains millions of such Superclusters.

- Closest major spiral galaxy to our Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy.

- Closest star to our Solar System is Proxima Centauri, about 4.3 light-years

away.

- Closest star-forming region in our Milky Way is the Orion Nebula, 1,500 light-

years away.

 

 

 

 

a probe into our solar system space because a space is not a space is not a space, as spaces most probably differ from each other depending on where they are...as here is what surrounds us

 

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say, especially the second part that I quoted.

 

what I was trying to say is that the equation is flawed because an object moving away from the big bang would have its rest mass change over time as it moves along.

 

the only way to make your equation work in my oppinion would be to find that light was some how derived from the size of the universe. in which case it would be some form of a vsl theory (does the current vsl theory already work this way?). but you would then have an equation like E=m(insert the way of finding the speed of light here)^2

 

this would work with the universe imho because if you have some sort of constant force pushing the universe outward (cosmological constant) and the amount of mass its pushing shrinks wouldn't it then accelerate?

 

which would match current observations of the universes expansion correct?

[Dov]

CPL.Luke,

 

I humbly admit that that I'm apparently too thick to understand the link/implication of vsl to the subject presented in post #18. On a reread of my #18 posting I still do not find a problem in these repeated paras :

 

Thus in E(cosmic) = m(cosmic) X C^2 FOR THE WHOLE UNIVERSE, cosmic E is constant. This mandates that, since C, a time-based term, is constant, also m is constant. This bothers me because I do'nt think that cosmic m is constant.

 

However, if the right side of the equation is m(1+D), where D= sum total of distances from point of big-bang of the sum total of m's, then both m and D vary continuously, and the original singular initial m decreases continuously as D increases with expansion. This appears rational and true-to-Universe, and it implies that eventually nearly all mass will be so diminshed (and also diluted localy) that it would practically be zero by human reckonning.

[CPL.Luke]

well, the implications of what you said are that instead of E=mc^2 it is in fact E=md (this would mean that a particle had some way of knowing how big the universe is)

 

you can't draw a distinction between the whole universe and a section of it.

 

the only way in my mind you could make E=md work would be to link the speed of light to the size of the universe. this way both E=mc^2 and E=md work.