## Business Physics III: Energy and Gravity

In examining an Newton’s and Einstein’s equations an interesting result became apparent to me.  According to Einstein’s equation

E = mc^2

If we consider my four dimensional equations in my previous related post

E = Mass * Light = M * C

or

E = ( ( T * T”’ ) / ( S’ * S” ) ) * ( ( S * S”’ ) / ( T’ * T” ) )

Related Posts:

Business Physics I: Space and Time

Business Physics II: Mass and Light

## Business Physics II: Mass and Light

The next question we are faced with in physics is: now that we have Space and Time defined, what are Mass and Light?  In classical physics Mass and Light are the inverse of one another with Mass defined as

Mass = ( ( e * e”’) / ( p’ * p” ) )

and Light defined as

Light = ( ( p * p”’ ) / ( e’ * e” ) ).

However, I am taking the four dimensional Space and Time approach.  According to my earlier post my hypothesis of four dimensional Space is defined as:

Space = ( ( p * p”’ ) / ( p’ * p” ) )

and four dimensional Time is defined as

Time = ( ( e * e”’ ) / ( e’ * e” ) )

where p are point sets and e are event sets.  In the context of business Mass is Product and Light is Conduct (Service).  Consequently, Productivity is defined as

( T / S’ )

and Conductivity as

( S / T’ ) .

Where S and T are Space sets and Time sets respectively.

Productivity increase is defined as

( T / ( S’ * S”) )

and Conductivity increase is defined as

( S / ( T’ * T” ) ) .

FInally, we get Product (Mass) defined as

( ( T * T”’ ) / ( S’ * S” ) )

and Conduct (Light) defined as

( ( S * S’ ) / ( T’ * T” ) ) .

Thus, we have the second order of business.

Related Posts:

Business Physics I:  Space and Time

Business Physics III: Energy and Gravity

## Business Physics I: Space and Time

Everything you’ve learned in school as “obvious” becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.
- R. Buckminster Fuller

One of the discoveries I have made, so far, in my study of physics and how it translates to business is that the fundamental building blocks of of the universe are the point and event.

The first step is to create the cardinal Distance set

Distance = | p |

and to create the cardinal Duration set

Duration = | e |

The second step is to create the ordinal Area set

Area = ( p / p’ )

and to create the ordinal Frequency set

Frequency = ( e / e’ )

The third step is to create the exponential Volume set

Volume = ( p / ( p’ * p”)

and the exponential Amplitude set

Amplitude = ( e / ( e’ * e” ) )

Finally, we consider the complete sets of Events giving us Space

Space = ( ( p * p”’ ) / ( p’ * p” ) )

and Time

Time = ( ( e * e”’ ) / ( e’  * e” ) )

where e are event sets and p are point sets.  Space and Time are four dimensional set constructs.

This applies to Business in the sense that Locating (Space) and Timing (Time) are the fundamental building blocks of business:  The first order of business.  We will move up to the next level in the next post.

Related Post:

Business Physics II:  Mass and Light

Business Physics III: Gravity and Energy

## Jared Diamond: Societal Collapse

more about “Jared Diamond: System Collapse“, posted with vodpod

If you listen carefully to what Jared Diamond is saying in the TED video above, he is describing not a five part, but a six part power curve into a systemic singularity. This has been one of the core themes of discussion of this blog.  We all seem to be too close to our problems to see the commonality.  The interrogatives come into play here:

1. Goals
2. People
3. Functions
4. Forms
5. Times
6. Distances

Times and Distances being the basis on which the higher orders are built.

When we look at the recent economic “crisis” we see 300 trillion in currency circulating and roughly 1 trillion to 2 trillion shifting suddenly and unexpectedly.  We witnessed a systemic collapse, a singularity, a tipping point, a power curve, an exponential change, a phase transition or whatever label you want to call it.  These have been happening everywhere since Time and Distance began in different contexts and orders both in human and non-human systems.

What Jared Diamond and other alarmists are implying is that human society is now a system approaching its final singularity in this century on this planet.  We are implying that today we are experiencing a less than one percent crisis on a power curve into a singularity.  How many more iterations will the global system withstand?  Will humanity make the step into space successfully before we experience a global dark age?  How will the six or more factors in the power curve play out?

The truth to me appears to be that power curves whether they play out or not result in either a systemic climax or anti-climax followed by a systemic collapse.  Would it not be better if we experienced a systemic climax that led to us expanding into the solar system?

Systemic collapse seems to be the fashion of this generation.  Every generation looks with fascination at its own youth, maturition, reproduction and acceleration into mortality.  Some die early, some die late, but all die.  It is an irrevocable law of nature.  It is not about self-interest.  It is about what self-interest is defined as.

Related Posts:

Beyond the Singularity

Servitas and Libertas

## How Much – Why

This is the set of equations I find curious.  As you can see (C)/(C) equals Energy.  Consequently, what are the two higher forms that correlate with Gravity?

## Universe: Hexahedron Theory

Hexahedron Schema:

1. 4 Axes are Dimension Particle Sets
2. 8 Vertexes are Space Particle Sets
3. 12 Edges are Force Particle Sets

1. 4 Axial Plane Sets
2. 6 Edge Plane Sets
3. 16 Axial Plane Triangulation Sets
4. 24 Edge Plane Triangulation Sets

Look at the vertexes of the hexahedron as entities.

Entities are Sequence->Value->Type

Look at the edges and axes of the hexahedron as associations.

Associations

are: SourceEntity->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

or: SourceAssociation->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

The instances for the entities and associations are the sets we are working with.

The key is the universe is composed of particles of a broad variety.  But every particle is simply an association in the form of a set.  The lowest order particles are event and point.  They are one dimensional particles.  All subsequent higher dimension particles can be reduced to a subset of these particles.

I have revised my theory to include the observer in the system.  I am of the opinion that the observer is not unary but binary having two hemispheres to the brain.  Position and Velocity are composed of sets not points and are observed separately by the ordinal and cardinal hemispheres of the observer.  Consequently, the universe is not probalistic, but wholly deterministic.

## Where – When : Space – Time

Sequa is an ordinal point set while frequa is a cardinal event set.

## What – How : Mass – Light

Quala is an ordinal sequency set while Quanta is a cardinal frequency set..

## Why – How Much :  Gravity – Energy

Grava is an ordinal quality set while Erga is a cardinal quantity set.

## Who – Whom : Ordinality – Cardinality

Orda is an ordinal gravity set while Erga is a cardinal energy set.

I think there are even higher order entities and associations, but I have still to work them out.

## Universe: Octahedron Theory

The octahedron:

1. 3 Axes (I thought this was a triangular point)
2. 4 Planar Corners (I thought this was a tetrahedral shell)
3. 6 Vertexes (I thought this was an octahedral shell)
4. 12 Edges (I thought this was an icosahedral shell)

The key is the universe is composed of particles of a broad variety.  But every particle is simply an association in the form of a set.  The lowest order particles are event and point.  They are one dimensional particles.  All subsequent higher dimension particles can be reduced to a subset of these particles.

The three axes of the octahedron are the universes of different orders.  They are simply subsets of one another.

The six vertexes of the octahedron are the vertex dimension sets of the system.

The twelve edges of the octahedron are edge dimension sets between each of the vertex dimension sets.  These edge sets are also particles and the same set equations can be applied to them that were applied to the vertex sets.

To understand the tables you will require high school level physics knowledge and an understanding of basic set theory.

First, I am taking ordinal sets and performing three set operations on them to get subsets.

Second, I am then plugging the subsets into a standard set equation that describes the “space” for that dimension set.

Third, I am then introducing the result into a higher order dimension set.

## Set Physics

I have been giving theoretical physics a thorough and systematic going over and I think I’ve come up with a unified solution that incorporates gravity and all the particles.

I’m thankful for the work of:

• Issac Newton
• Albert Einstein
• R. Buckminster Fuller
• Max Plank
• Richard Feynman
• and a broad array of experimental physicists

Giants whose shoulders I stand on.

Each row in this model is a set of particles.  Everything is ultimately composed of distance and time.

I am creating a new taxonomy because the existing names do not consistently define the particles of the system.

## System Schema

The structure of the schema is three dimensional and composed of three shells:

Inner Tetrahedral Intrashell:

Middle Octahedral Intershell:

Outer Icosahedral Boundary Shell:

The edges, vertexes and connections between the shells are all significant in revealing the dependecy of the particles upon one another.

This is the best I can do for a two dimensional representation:

## Framework for a Real Enterprise

It was Peter Drucker who revealed undeniably that business was a science that could lead to predictable results.  The way he did so was by collecting and systematizing all the knowledge he could gather on the subject and then testing hypotheses.  After much deliberation on the science of systems and the science of business.  I present the Physics Framework above and the Enterprise Framework below.  As one physics Nobel laureate said, “If you aren’t doing physics, you’re stamp collecting!”

I am working to refine my framework table for a lay audience. It is a vocabulary for a business system. Like the Linnean system, by using the intersection of the row and column (two terms) I can identify any operation of the system. Still needs work, but its getting there.

It is based on an associative (node and link) architecture not a relational (table and relationships) architecture.

At first glance this might be regarded as a Zachman Framework.  The columns by convention are called focuses.  The rows called perspectives.  The interrogatives make up the column header.  John Zachman offered some poorly chosen row headers which I’ve replaced.  There are two major differences.  First, it requires an additional focus as part of the enterprise, the Market which is measured in potential profit.  It’s time for the academics and bureaucrats to stop turning up their noses to the source of their existence:  a market that will pay in currency to fatten their budgets.  Second, REVISE, the nodes, are something obvious to Einstein; RELATE, the links, something obvious to Drucker (remember the links are verbs); REPORT, the node and link attributes, should be obvious to Thomas Jefferson; RECORD, the databases, to Carnegie; REGARD, the datatypes, to Turing; REPOSE, the ordinality, which remembers whats related to what, REVEAL, the cardinality, full of exceptions to the enterprise.

## Ten

With this diagram I am eating a considerable amount of my previous work with the icons as well as a few concepts.  The reason for this is I am discovering the logic behind interrogatives that are not commonly used that are essential in the logic of system design.  The first row is the interrogatives (questions).  “Whuch” is how much.  The second row are my rearranged icons.  The third row are my Greek terms for the solutions.