PSI Blog 20211213 Relationship between matter and energy
This week’s book prize goes to
anon who asks:
I
understand there is matter and motion (according to your book). There is no
matter without motion (verbs/energy) and no motion without matter
(nouns/matter)? can u give an analogy for ordinary folks like me without labs
to understand?”
[GB: I
explained this in: “The physical meaning of E=mc2”[i],
which is one of my most
popular papers—so far, it has had 11,927 reads on ResearchGate.net
and 40 reads on Academia.edu.
Essentially,
energy is a calculation; it neither exists nor occurs. Energy is a matter-motion term, which, like all matter-motion terms,
signifies neither matter nor motion. Momentum (P=mv) is another matter-motion
term. Like energy, you cannot put some momentum in your back pocket. It is
simply a calculation describing the effect of a microcosm (a thing taking up
xyz space) upon another microcosm. In other words, all the universe consists of
things colliding with other things. When we use a matter-motion term, we are
describing the effects of these things colliding with other things. So, energy
is neither a noun nor a verb—it is not motion any more than momentum or force
is motion.
If you
read my paper, you will find that the E=mc2 equation is nothing but
a description of Newton’s First Law of Motion: a microcosm continues through
the universe under its own motion, transferring its motion to other microcosms
or obtaining motion from other microcosms. Changes in mass reflect the
resistance provided by submicrocosms within that microcosm that are speeded up
by those collisions or slowed down when some of that motion is transferred to
the supermicrocosms in the macrocosm. Einstein never really understood Maxwell’s E=mc2
equation, because, in the absence of the atmosphere (and aether), he had
nothing to transfer motion to supermicrocosms in the environment. Instead, he
imagined “energy” fliting off into perfectly empty space by itself as the quasi-thing
that mass supposedly was magically transformed into. So, anon, you are not the
only one confused about energy and its relation to mass! Hope this clears up
some of the confusion.]
[i] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings
of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].
Posts
4 comments:
Great blog, Glenn. I agree with your definition of energy as being a calculation. But it is not correct to say that a calculation is not a noun. According to Merriam-Webster, a calculation is a noun. I think you meant to say energy is not a thing and does not occur.
Thanks George. You are sort of correct just because we tend to classify the things of the universe as nouns and their actions as verbs. And, of course, that is just the problem here. Nouns describe xyz things that exist. While energy does not exist, you are right in implying that calculations can exist, on paper, at least. We need to know the difference lest we begin to think of energy as Einstein did: a magical, matterless "thing" flying through perfectly empty space, carrying mass along with it.
I think the universe is infinite , but there still need to be an explanation for the red shifting of light and the constant acceleration of the universe . I have an idea that fits in perfectly with a infinite universe.
our universe could be a bubble , like a pocket of gas trapped in a rock . we would be the most dense portion of the gas , as a result we gravitate(accelerate) towards the surrounding rock .
this would me that the galaxies are actually moving several times the speed of light , in order to accommodate these kinds of speed , the medium surrounding the galaxies need to be even less dense(faster motion) than the medium inside the galaxies.
only problem thought is that if waves pass through this medium it would be several times the speed of light.
The universe is indeed infinite. But it therefore cannot expand because there is nothing to expand into. The cosmological redshift is primarily a result of distance traveled due to the impossibility of perfect wave reproduction. Check out “Religious Roots of Relativity” for further info.
Post a Comment