Is there is no energy, no mass, no time, only space?

This is the Einstein Field Equation

einstein

Time t is simply the distance the hands travel around the clock, the distance the earth rotates around its axis, the distance the earth revolves around the sun.

Mass m is simply a four distance or dimensional space.

Gravity is the comparison of four states: the Energy state, the Mass state, the Distance state and the Time state.

The dimensions that compose the universe are not “curled up” they are all visible to us every day.

Einstein thought the fields were unipolar making them circular, however experiment emphasizes the fields have two poles making them elliptical.

The cosmological constant is simply another four space making the incorporation of dark matter and dark energy graceful.

Why are physicists so tied up in knots over such a simple concept?

czerepak-field-equation-diagram

Click the image to enlarge it.

where d is distance and e is events.

This model gives you twelve dimensions and all of the dimensions are visible every day, they are not concealed or “wrapped up” at all.

I do not consider this equation perfect, but I believe I am on the right track.

What the above equation describes is a toroidal torus, or a klein bottle.

Consequently, the Einstein Field Equation describes a regular klein bottle, while the Czerepak field equation describes an irregular klein bottle.  What is special about the klein bottle is it only has one side.  This would mean the Universe although in constant flux is eternal and singular.  There was no bang and there will be no crunch just continual cycling through states.

klien-bottle-universe

The only other consideration is that the elliptical paths, should be replaced with spiral paths.  This would make the klein bottle recursive.  How many recursions there are may be limited to the seven states identified by the System International Units: luminosity, temperature, time, distance, mass, current and molarity all of these reducing to distances.

I already see commercial applications for this model.

Advertisements

No, you don’t understand physics

IsaacNewton-1689

Newton’s Three Laws of Motion

1. Velocity (inertia)


v = m * d / t

2. Force (acceleration)


F = m * d / ( t1 * t2 )

3.  Energy (action/reaction)


E = m * ( d1 * d2 ) / ( t1 * t2 )

4. Gravity


1 / G = ( t1 * x1 * x2 * x3 ) * 8 π * ( d1 * d2 * d3 * d4 ) / ( t1 * t2 * t3 * t4 )


The observer is always a part of a gravitational equation. The observer has two eyes, not one.

Yes, that is what Newton said. Memorizer.

Universe: Interrogative Spaces

iconuniverse14

In my previous post I gave thought to Tim Brown of IDEO’s “design thinking”, Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma”, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”, and Buckminster Fuller’s “Synergetics” concepts.  What emerged was the above Czerepak Framework.  My claim is this framework is fundamental to designing a system.

The thing that the above table shows is interaction within what I am now going to call the “Interrogative Spaces”: HowSpace, WhatSpace, WhySpace, WhoSpace, WhenSpace, WhereSpace, HowMuchSpace, HowManySpace.  Each ellipse I call a “vortice”.  The Interrogative Spaces are composed of one or more vortices.  The Framework above shows how Spaces are composed within the Interrogatives,  but what about interactions between the Interrogative Spaces?   A good example is speed or velocity.  Speed is the intersection of WhenSpace and WhereSpace:

v = r / t

Where v is velocity, r is radius and t is time.

If you are increasing Speed, which is acceleration, you have one dimension of WhereSpace and two dimensions of WhenSpace:

a = r / t’ * t”

Where a is acceleration, r is radius, t’ is the first clock and t” is the second clock.  You cannot measure acceleration with one clock. This uniqueness of every vortice applies to all the Interrogative Spaces and all inter-relationships between all of the Spaces.  .

Another way to look at the Interrogative Spaces is as sets and subsets.  The first row are the complete Space vortice sets.  The second row are the first Space vortice subsets.  The third row is the intersect between the row two and row three Space vortice subsets. And the fourth row are the intersects between the row two and row three and row four Space vortice subsets.

I do not believe that anything is constant.  Not the speed of light, not gravity, not cosmology.  Every intersection of dimensions creates a vortex in Universe and every one is unique.  We are simply unable to measure and manage the uniqueness of everything, therefore we make generalizations which create models that can always be falsified.

Buckminster Fuller: In, Around and Out

iconsrelate

There is no “up” or “down”.  There is only “in”, “around” and “out’.

– R. Buckminster Fuller

What Buckminster says is not so hard to understand if you think about planetary bodies.  You can fall into the gravitational well, orbit the gravitational well or escape the gravitational well.  There are only the three choices.  The same goes for all forces ultimately.

Business Physics III: Energy and Gravity

bouncing_ball_strobe_edit

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

Universe: Hexahedron Theory Revised

When – Where

How – What

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?

Who – Whom

Garrett Lisi on his theory of everything

I agree with Garrett Lisi. It’s sets and geometry.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Garrett Lisi on his theory of everyth…“, posted with vodpod

The Lie E8 is a beautiful structure mathematically with 248 dimensions:

However, I think what he wants to achieve is even simpler to model physically.

This is a 3V Icosahedron Geodesate:

This structure gives us 92 vertexes (entities) and 270 edges (associations) or 362 particles.

Employing Occam’s Razor, I suggest that some form of Icosahedron Geodesate theory is more likely the answer.