Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Per Space Is Far Simpler Than Space Per Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time Per Space Is Far Simpler Than Space Per Time

    By 'Space Per Time' I mean m/s (meters per second aka velocity) or m/s^2 (meters per second squared aka acceleration) or c/s (charge per second aka Amps) or 1/s (occurrences per second aka Hertz aka frequency) aka Space/Time aka Space Per Time. What if instead we made our electrical engineering equations with respect to space, not time. So instead of m/s, m/s^2, c/s, 1/s it becomes s/m (seconds per meter) or s/m^2 (seconds per meter squared) or s/c (seconds per charge) or s/1 (seconds per occurrence) aka Time/Space aka Time Per Space.

    The dimension of space is much more conducive to being 'squared' or 'cubed' than the dimension of time is. It is difficult for the brain to physically visualize 'per seconds squared', but it is very easy for the brain to physically visualize 'per meters squared'. A square second can't be naturally represented in physical reality(in a way that I know of), but a square meter can be represented in physical reality very simply, its the shape of a square in space. A square is a spatial pattern containing 4 equal sides connected at 90 degree angles. Even the words 'squared' and 'cubed' describe spatial shapes not temporal shapes.

    Change in spatial coordinates per temporal measurement seems to make things unnecessarily complex. If instead we based our engineering equations(especially electrical equations) on change in temporal coordinates per spatial measurement electrical equations would become much easier to visualize within the mind. Squared and cubed spatial measurements directly relate to observable reality but squared and cubed temporal measurements have no relation to observable reality. Time coordinates can be past, present, or future, while space coordinates can be length, height, width, depth, angle, density, concentration, volume, position, etc. In other words space measurements require more coordinates to accurately measure than time measurements.

    Time Per Space seems to be far simpler than Space Per Time.

  • #2
    In physics, in general we want to define a state and how that state changes over time.
    So for example I am at a location x meters from my home. That is a state which can be expressed in meters.
    How does that change over time? Well, if I have a velocity of 5 m/s then x increases by 5 every second, and if I have an acceleration of 3 m/s, that is 3 (m/s) /s, then my velocity changes by 3 m/s every second. Nothing complex about it.
    How would you describe that in s/m?

    Ernst.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ernst View Post
      In physics, in general we want to define a state and how that state changes over time.
      So for example I am at a location x meters from my home. That is a state which can be expressed in meters.
      How does that change over time? Well, if I have a velocity of 5 m/s then x increases by 5 every second, and if I have an acceleration of 3 m/s, that is 3 (m/s) /s, then my velocity changes by 3 m/s every second. Nothing complex about it.
      How would you describe that in s/m?

      Ernst.
      I appreciate the rebuttal, I'm still working out the time per space equations and your rebuttal has helped greatly.

      In reality, we want to define levels of precision in time and space. Then how much time it takes to change position in space.
      So for example I am at a moment in in time t 1640666093 from the unix time (January 1st 1970 on the Georgian calendar). That is a state which can be expressed in seconds.
      How does that change according to space? Well, if I have a velocity of 1/5 s/m then t increases by 1 every 5 meters in a one coordinate spatial direction(x), and if I have an acceleration of 1/3 s/m2, that is 1/3 (s/m) /m, then my t increases by 1 second every 3 meters in a two coordinate spatial direction(x,y). It requires a change in thinking but it may simplify electrical equations.
      I would describe 5 s/m2 as t increases by 5 seconds every 1 meter changed in a two coordinate spatial direction(x,y).

      The benefits of time per space are not immediately noticeable in kinematics using velocity and acceleration, but it becomes more obvious in electrical equations when the concept of frequency is introduced. Frequency is rarely considered a factor when it comes to kinematics using velocity and acceleration like f=ma, but frequency can be a massive factor when it comes to electrical engineering equations, like f=ma is represented as emf=electrostaticpressure(volts) x charge/second(columbs/second) x occurrences/second(60 hertz). While its not immediately noticeable how s/m is superior to m/s it becomes much more obvious in electrical equations, instead of columbs/second (charge/second) it becomes seconds/charge. Keep in mind that the level of precision in time doesn't always have to be seconds and the level of precision in space doesn't always have to be meters.

      I have some other questions and observations on the equations used in electrical engineering. Does mass fall into the category of 'space'? In other words is mass(kg, grams etc) a spatial measurement or no? If no then what? Spirit? Inertia? Sometimes I wonder if the letters in our electrical equations mean something else, like why is "I" used for current, there is no letter 'I' in the word current or amps or columbs/second, it makes no sense. It makes sense if its really "Inertia" (aka mass). Another is momentum represented by a "p" but momentum has no connection to the letter "p", but it makes sense if it really "Power", and "V" used for volts is really velocity. There are many peculiar letters used in electrical engineering and regular physics. Perhaps there are simple equations hidden within the oddly used letters for various aspects of measurements in science. If there really is a ruling class of humans on earth, they'd need to have a way to maintain their sanity within the complex equations used in science. It also plays into the whole "'they' cannot outright lie, 'they' must give remedy for those that see and hear."


      Comment


      • #4
        Although I cannot agree with your mathematical explorations, I may be able to shine some light on your question (though I cannot answer it, and I think no one can).
        Mass in general is a unit of quantity, quantity of matter. And it is expressed/measured in two different ways, one as inertia (according to F=m a) and two as a measure of attraction (according to F = G (m1 m2) / r .These are two very different things and it is not at all evident that these two (inertial mass and gravitational mass) would be the same. Luckily, all experiments to verify this equality could not distinguish between the two.
        I would not say that mass has a spacial unit, because 1 m osmium has a significantly greater mass than a piece of aluminium of the same dimension.

        Ernst.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ernst View Post
          Although I cannot agree with your mathematical explorations, I may be able to shine some light on your question (though I cannot answer it, and I think no one can).
          Mass in general is a unit of quantity, quantity of matter. And it is expressed/measured in two different ways, one as inertia (according to F=m a) and two as a measure of attraction (according to F = G (m1 m2) / r .These are two very different things and it is not at all evident that these two (inertial mass and gravitational mass) would be the same. Luckily, all experiments to verify this equality could not distinguish between the two.
          I would not say that mass has a spacial unit, because 1 m osmium has a significantly greater mass than a piece of aluminium of the same dimension.

          Ernst.
          Its clear that I should have waited until I had properly fleshed out and tested my Time/Space equations before claiming they are far simpler(sometimes my intuition gets a lil 'overactive' haha). While I still believe my Time/Space endeavor will be fruitful, Ill table it for now in order to ask a few other questions I've always had in reference to electrical engineering equations.

          Using Space/Time equations(modern science):
          Why is current represented with the letter 'I', when the letter 'I' doesn't appear in the word current or amps or columbs/second? I don't buy the whole, 'we ran out of letters' thing.
          Is my assessment of F=mass x acceleration being equivalent to F=mass x velocity(in m/s) x frequency(in 1/s) accurate?
          If so, is the following accurate when using electrical terms does this become electromotiveforce=electrostaticpressure(in V) x current(in charge/second aka A) x frequency(in occurrences/second aka Hz which is normally 60hz in the US)?

          Concerning mass and Newtons gravitational so-called constant:
          F=G(m1 m2)/r2 uses very odd units of measurement that 'smell' off.
          According to wikipedia G = 6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2 My first reaction to this so-called constant is what does '6.67430(15)' mean? Specifically what does the (15) mean in this context, I've never seen parenthesis used in this way before. It appears that the (15) is related to 'standard uncertainty', according to wikipedia 'standard uncertainty' means 'unknown information' that effects the exact result. It doesn't matter how 'standard' the 'uncertainty' of G is, if it is 'uncertain' it is by definition not a constant right?
          I'm a computer programmer by trade, and in computer programming when a value is defined as a 'constant' it means the value is immutable aka once its set, it can never be changed again. Maybe computer programming definition of a constant is different than the physics definition of constant and I'm wrong in thinking a constant is immutable, idk. If im not wrong it means, by definition G is not a constant value, it is a variable.
          I also find the usage of the 'r2' as the squared distance between the center of 2 masses to smell fishy, why is it squared? Distance is a single coordinate measurement, not a two coordinate measurement, if r2 was the 'area' between the center of the two masses then it makes sense, but its the 'distance', not the 'area'.
          I guess my point is, perhaps F=G(m1 m2)/r2 is arbitrary or if not arbitrary it has very little engineerable value in the real world.
          Also if G=6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2 then the equation F=G(m1 m2)/r2 equals F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)(m1 m2)/r2 and if r2 equals m2 it becomes F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((m1 m2) x m-2). While I haven't had to do dimensional analysis in 8 or so years when I was in college at least 1 mass or meter has to be canceled out right? In other words F=G(m1 m2)/r2 is at best an overcomplication and at worst an obfuscation to hide a simpler truth. It appears, F=m x a definition is far more accurate and engineerable but idk.

          Concerning inertia:
          I suspect inertia is far more important than how it is presented. Ken Wheeler has proven 7 different ways in which inertia can be affected. I forget the exact 7 ways off the top of my head and Ken has so many videos I am unable to exactly pin point the one in which he actually states all 7(if I find it ill post it).
          Is inertia equivalent to mass, is it equivalent to weight, or is it different? My gut telling me its different but i'm not 100%.
          I love researching inertia because you can see it being utilized in almost all subjects, especially martial arts and sports. This may seem uncouth and low brow on this forum haha but sometimes you can find very interesting info from very unlikely places. This video is a 'street ball' basketball player explaining in detail how to throw off a defenders inertia(aka center of gravity aka weight) using very quick but subtle shifts in your own inertia(he calls it weight) when it pertains to body movements: https://youtu.be/tUNx-vIl4fY Its hard to really quantify inertia imo and combined with Ken Wheelers 7 different ways, I could talk about inertia for days so Ill cut it here haha. Its just that the concept feels like its much more important than what is being presented by the mainstream or maybe this is what is meant by the 'standard uncertainty', idk.

          Concerning mass as density or concentration:
          "I would not say that mass has a spacial unit, because 1 m osmium has a significantly greater mass than a piece of aluminium of the same dimension."
          I remember being taught in hs that mass is basically the 'density' (or concentration) of an object, do you agree with that assessment or no?
          If yes, doesn't this mean its a spatial measurement and in the case of osmium 1m3 it would mean that its spatially more concentrated aka compact than other elements?

          Thanks for the help!





          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Spells Of Truth View Post
            My first reaction to this so-called constant is what does '6.67430(15)' mean? Specifically what does the (15) mean in this context, I've never seen parenthesis used in this way before. It appears that the (15) is related to 'standard uncertainty', according to wikipedia 'standard uncertainty' means 'unknown information' that effects the exact result. It doesn't matter how 'standard' the 'uncertainty' of G is, if it is 'uncertain' it is by definition not a constant right?
            I'm a computer programmer by trade, and in computer programming when a value is defined as a 'constant' it means the value is immutable aka once its set, it can never be changed again. Maybe computer programming definition of a constant is different than the physics definition of constant and I'm wrong in thinking a constant is immutable, idk. If im not wrong it means, by definition G is not a constant value, it is a variable.
            I also find the usage of the 'r2' as the squared distance between the center of 2 masses to smell fishy, why is it squared? Distance is a single coordinate measurement, not a two coordinate measurement, if r2 was the 'area' between the center of the two masses then it makes sense, but its the 'distance', not the 'area'.
            I guess my point is, perhaps F=G(m1 m2)/r2 is arbitrary or if not arbitrary it has very little engineerable value in the real world.
            Also if G=6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2 then the equation F=G(m1 m2)/r2 equals F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)(m1 m2)/r2 and if r2 equals m2 it becomes F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((m1 m2) x m-2). While I haven't had to do dimensional analysis in 8 or so years when I was in college at least 1 mass or meter has to be canceled out right? In other words F=G(m1 m2)/r2 is at best an overcomplication and at worst an obfuscation to hide a simpler truth. It appears, F=m x a definition is far more accurate and engineerable but idk.

            Concerning inertia:
            I suspect inertia is far more important than how it is presented. Ken Wheeler has proven 7 different ways in which inertia can be affected. I forget the exact 7 ways off the top of my head and Ken has so many videos I am unable to exactly pin point the one in which he actually states all 7(if I find it ill post it).
            Is inertia equivalent to mass, is it equivalent to weight, or is it different? My gut telling me its different but i'm not 100%.
            I love researching inertia because you can see it being utilized in almost all subjects, especially martial arts and sports. This may seem uncouth and low brow on this forum haha but sometimes you can find very interesting info from very unlikely places. This video is a 'street ball' basketball player explaining in detail how to throw off a defenders inertia(aka center of gravity aka weight) using very quick but subtle shifts in your own inertia(he calls it weight) when it pertains to body movements: https://youtu.be/tUNx-vIl4fY Its hard to really quantify inertia imo and combined with Ken Wheelers 7 different ways, I could talk about inertia for days so Ill cut it here haha. Its just that the concept feels like its much more important than what is being presented by the mainstream or maybe this is what is meant by the 'standard uncertainty', idk.

            Concerning mass as density or concentration:
            "I would not say that mass has a spacial unit, because 1 m osmium has a significantly greater mass than a piece of aluminium of the same dimension."
            I remember being taught in hs that mass is basically the 'density' (or concentration) of an object, do you agree with that assessment or no?
            If yes, doesn't this mean its a spatial measurement and in the case of osmium 1m3 it would mean that its spatially more concentrated aka compact than other elements?
            The (15) means that these are believed to be the next digits, but measurements have not been sufficiently precise to say that they certainly are. That does not imply that G would not be constant, it just means that we do not know its exact value. For example, if I had 1 m of osmium it would weigh about 22,610 Kg, could be a little more or less but it is definitely not changing over time and therefore it is constant, even though I do not know the exact value. When rounded mathematically it could weigh 22.6 ton, meaning that these digits are certain or in other words it weighs between 22.55 and 22.6499999.. ton. Knowing the density of osmium and the dimensions, I could say that it weighs 22.6(1) ton.
            G, likewise, is supposed to be immutable, i.e. constant, not changing over time nor location.

            Look at the Sun, it radiates a certain amount of energy, let's say X Watts. Assuming for simplicity that this radiation is spread equally over the surface of the Sun then every m of the Sun produces a certain part of this total energy. You can calculate that value as X divided by the Sun's surface. Now, at the distance of the Earth that energy is spread over the surface of a much larger sphere (radius being the distance Earth-Sun). This surface is 4 pi r, as you will almost certainly know. So at distance r the density of the Sun's rays decreases by a factor r. Nothing fishy about it. Likewise you could say that the attractive force gets spread over a larger area and therefore decreases by a factor r.

            Inertia is a measure of mass, or vice versa. Mass is not weight, as weight depends on local gravity. A mass of 1 Kg on Earth would weigh about 1/7 Kg on the Moon, but it still is a mass of 1 Kg.

            Mass is not density. Density is mass per unit of volume (you could indeed think of it as concentration)


            Ernst.

            Comment


            • #7
              Forgot...
              Also if G=6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2 then the equation F=G(m1 m2)/r2 equals F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)(m1 m2)/r2 and if r2 equals m2 it becomes F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((m1 m2) x m-2).
              You forgot to enter the units for m1 and m2, so F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((m1 m2) x m-2 becomes F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((kg x kg) x m-2 =(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((kg) x m-2 (then some meters cancel out) = (6.67430(15) x 10-11 m x kg-1 x s-2)((kg x kg) (then some kg cancel out) = (6.67430(15) x 10-11 m x kg x s-2) so now we have kg m / s which is mass times acceleration as in F= m a.
              And
              Is my assessment of F=mass x acceleration being equivalent to F=mass x velocity(in m/s) x frequency(in 1/s) accurate?
              In terms of units, yes. But what does it mean? Semantics in IT terms. Frequency is a term that usually refers to a recurring event, not a continuous one.
              So for example if I apply a force of 60N on a 1 Kg object it will accelerate 60 m/s or in other words it will add 60 m/s to its velocity every second, but not in steps. Its velocity will increase by 30 m/s every half second, or 6 m/s every tenth of a second, etc. Ie it is a smooth, continuous acceleration. So then what would you call its frequency and what its velocity?

              Ernst.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ernst View Post

                The (15) means that these are believed to be the next digits, but measurements have not been sufficiently precise to say that they certainly are. That does not imply that G would not be constant, it just means that we do not know its exact value. For example, if I had 1 m of osmium it would weigh about 22,610 Kg, could be a little more or less but it is definitely not changing over time and therefore it is constant, even though I do not know the exact value. When rounded mathematically it could weigh 22.6 ton, meaning that these digits are certain or in other words it weighs between 22.55 and 22.6499999.. ton. Knowing the density of osmium and the dimensions, I could say that it weighs 22.6(1) ton.
                G, likewise, is supposed to be immutable, i.e. constant, not changing over time nor location.

                Look at the Sun, it radiates a certain amount of energy, let's say X Watts. Assuming for simplicity that this radiation is spread equally over the surface of the Sun then every m of the Sun produces a certain part of this total energy. You can calculate that value as X divided by the Sun's surface. Now, at the distance of the Earth that energy is spread over the surface of a much larger sphere (radius being the distance Earth-Sun). This surface is 4 pi r, as you will almost certainly know. So at distance r the density of the Sun's rays decreases by a factor r. Nothing fishy about it. Likewise you could say that the attractive force gets spread over a larger area and therefore decreases by a factor r.

                Inertia is a measure of mass, or vice versa. Mass is not weight, as weight depends on local gravity. A mass of 1 Kg on Earth would weigh about 1/7 Kg on the Moon, but it still is a mass of 1 Kg.

                Mass is not density. Density is mass per unit of volume (you could indeed think of it as concentration)


                Ernst.
                Concerning the (15) 'standard uncertainty':
                Your explanation clears that up, but I still think the use of parenthesis as if the full number ratio was a word and not a math ratio is unnecessarily confusing, why not brackets[15], idk. I guess computer programming gets rid of the possibility of 'standard uncertainty' by defining the precision before declaring the value of the constant.

                Concerning constants:
                "immutable, i.e. constant, not changing over time nor location"
                So you are saying values that do not change over time OR SPACE are constants. That technically is equivalent to the constants and immutable values in computing programming, but I've never thought about from the stand point of time and space. I wonder if the change in location holds true in constants in computer programming as well. I guess it kind of does. The only way to move a constants value in location would be to initialize another constant and set it equal to the first constants value, then delete the first. That is more like a cut and paste to a new location than actually moving to a different location. Perhaps this way of changing location could apply to real life. Hasn't Dollard alluded to the 'integratron' being a device that allows for someone to be in 2 places at once(aka 'teleportation')? Isn't that kind of like a copy of the value at one location to a different location(in 2 places at once aka 'teleportation'), and then deleting the value at the original location? The deletion of the original would occur instantaneously(from our perspective) after the copy was made. If we the silently observing pilots of the vehicles called human bodies, then copy and deletion would be of our vehicles not of us and in this way it could be feasibly possible to be in 2 places at once for a near instantaneous amount of time.

                Concerning distance r:
                "(radius being the distance Earth-Sun). ... So at distance r ..."
                Distance is measured with a single coordinate system aka m, ft, in, cm. Area is measured with a two coordinate system aka m2, ft2, in2,cm2 not distance. Radius is a distance, not an area. Radius squared is an area, not a distance. I should have been more clear what I meant by fleshing out F=G(m1*m2)/r2 and canceling out values. A better way to put it is when F=G(m1*m2)/r2 is represented using its SI units of measurement it becomes F=6.67430(15) * 10-11 m3 * 1/kg * 1/s2 * (mass1kg * mass2kg) * radius/meter2 = 0.000000000066743015 m3 * 1/kg * 1/s2 * mass12kg2 * r/meter2 . Using dimensional analysis many of the values can be cancelled out and it becomes 0.000000000066743015 m3 * 1/kg * 1/s2 * mass12kg2 * r/m2 with the red sections canceled and removed and the blue sections updated it becomes 0.000000000066743015 * r * m * 1/s2 * mass12kg in other words F=(mass12kg * .000000000066743015 m)/s2 . Adding in mass of earth in kg * mass of sun in kg get 1.1878308e+55 and the distance from the sun at 147,100,000,000 * .000000000066743015 in m as 9.8178975 the equation becomes F=(1.1878308e+55 kg * 9.8178975 m)/s2 AKA 1F=(M*S)/T2 where M=mass, S=space, T=time, F=force, which is basically F=MA... It still kinda smells bad.

                Inertia and mass:
                I get that that inertia can be a measure of mass and mass can be a measure of inertia, but mass and inertia do not seem to be the same thing. I agree mass is not weight. Weight is a measurement of mass * acceleration of 'gravity' with no other influences. Inertia seems to be a combination of both mass and space, perhaps the precursor to weight and mass. An example of the difference would be standing on a scale at rest, thats the weight, then stand on a scale and rapidly shift your inertia in your body towards the scale without stepping off the scale and the value will increase drastically for a short second or 2. In this way inertia is a measurement of mass * acceleration accounting for all influences. This what I meant by inertia being weird.

                Thanks for the ideas and new perspectives!


                Last edited by Spells Of Truth; 12-31-2021, 07:28 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ernst View Post
                  Forgot...

                  You forgot to enter the units for m1 and m2, so F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((m1 m2) x m-2 becomes F=(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((kg x kg) x m-2 =(6.67430(15) x 10-11 m3 x kg-1 x s-2)((kg) x m-2 (then some meters cancel out) = (6.67430(15) x 10-11 m x kg-1 x s-2)((kg x kg) (then some kg cancel out) = (6.67430(15) x 10-11 m x kg x s-2) so now we have kg m / s which is mass times acceleration as in F= m a.
                  And

                  In terms of units, yes. But what does it mean? Semantics in IT terms. Frequency is a term that usually refers to a recurring event, not a continuous one.
                  So for example if I apply a force of 60N on a 1 Kg object it will accelerate 60 m/s or in other words it will add 60 m/s to its velocity every second, but not in steps. Its velocity will increase by 30 m/s every half second, or 6 m/s every tenth of a second, etc. Ie it is a smooth, continuous acceleration. So then what would you call its frequency and what its velocity?

                  Ernst.
                  1st paragraph:
                  I addressed the 1st part in my previous reply.

                  2nd paragraph:
                  As a sanity check, you mean 'information technology' when you say IT terms right?
                  "Frequency is a term that usually refers to a recurring event, not a continuous one."
                  Agreed.
                  "So for example if I apply a force of 60N on a 1 Kg object it will accelerate 60 m/s or in other words it will add 60 m/s to its velocity every second, but not in steps. Its velocity will increase by 30 m/s every half second, or 6 m/s every tenth of a second, etc."
                  Another way of saying 30 m/s every half second is 30 m/s at 2 times per second. Another way of saying 6 m/s every tenth of a second is 6 m/s at 10 times per second. Acceleration = force/mass. 1m/1s2 = 60N/1kg and with dimensional analysis that becomes 1m*1/1s2 = 60 * 1kg * 1m * 1/1s2 * 1/1kg with the red removed through cancellation. 1m*1/1s2 = 60 * 1m * 1/1s2 doesn't make sense how can 1m/1s2 = 60 * 1m/1s2. It makes sense when changed to 1 = 1 * 1space/1time*1time = 60 * 1m/1s2 . The magnitude is 60 and smallest unit of measurement (level of precision) is 1 meter per 1 second squared. To represent this in velocity and frequency it becomes 1 = 1 * 1space/1time * 1/1time = 60 * 1m/1s * 1/1s. The magnitude is 60 and the smallest units of measurement are 1 meter per 1 second AND 1 per second. The two units of measurement are velocity and frequency instead of just the one when the unit of measurement was acceleration.
                  "Ie it is a smooth, continuous acceleration. So then what would you call its frequency and what its velocity?" Its 60 velocity * 1 freq or 30 velocity * 2 freq or 10 velocity * 6 freq. Velocity * freq implies a possible change in state(magnitude or direction) at each occurrence in frequency. 60 acceleration aka 60 velocity at 1 freq has only 1 possible change in state from start to end. 30 velocity at 2 freq could have 2 changes in state. 6 velocity at 10 frequency could have 10 changes in state. Acceleration encompasses a 1*1/1*1/1 ratio between 3 measurements 1m * 1/1s * 1/1s with a single unit of measurement. It has 1 variable with a magnitude. Velocity * frequency encompasses a 1*1/1*1/1 ratio between 3 measurements 1m * 1/1s * 1/1s with two units of measurement. It has 2 variables, each with a magnitude.

                  In a way this is like Dollards space and counter space, but it doesn't just apply to space it applies to all dimensions of measurement (space and time).

                  Dollard explains in "A Common Language for Electrical Engineering":
                  I – First order of space: (a) DISTANCE Space to the positive first power, . (b) SPAN Space to the negative first power, .
                  II – Second order space: (a) AREA Space to the positive second power, . (b) DENSITY Space to the negative second power, .
                  III – Third order space: (a) VOLUME Space to the positive third power, . (b) CONCENTRATION Space to the negative third power, .
                  IV – Fourth order space: (a) Space to the positive fourth power, . (b) Space to the negative fourth power, .
                  Finally Nth order space.
                  The (a) group are the spatial relations, and the (b) Group are the counter-spatial relations. Higher order space, such as fourth order lack definition, it is undefined space. Einstein 4D space, crystal structured? It remains undefined!
                  I used to equate the (a) spatial relations as the magnitude and the (b) counter-spatial relations as the smallest unit of measurement, Dollard even uses the name counter space as in count space or its what is being used to count space. But as I was breaking down your 60N applied to 1kg example I've realized my assessment of Dollards (a) meaning magnitude and (b) meaning smallest unit of measurement doesn't quite work as I thought. Magnitude doesn't equate to (a) spatial relations, (a) spatial relations are also smallest units of measurement. Magnitude is not a dimension of measurement like time and space its a dimension of ether (or electricity or inertia or magnetism or whatever you want to call it). Both (a) spatial relations and (b) counter-spatial relations are smallest unit/s of measurement. The only things required to measure space and time are magnitude and the smallest unit/s of measurement.


                  "In terms of units, yes. But what does it mean?"
                  Its relevant because in AC electricity, frequency always matters, but in DC electricity it doesn't. DC electricity equates to F=m*a and AC equates to F=m*v*f. Mass could be equivalent to current electrostatic pressure, velocity could be equivalent to current. If its DC then its current (velocity) * 1/1s(in other words acceleration) if its AC then its current(velocity) * 60/1s.


                  There are so many other things I've learned by responding to your answers that I don't know where to start, this chat has got me very close to some massive simplifications of mathematics. Thanks again!


                  Happy New Year!





                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Glad to hear that I've been of some help.
                    I'm going to leave it here for now.
                    Happy New Year to you too!
                    BTW, yes, IT as in Information Technology (my profession for about 25 years or so.)

                    Ernst.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I sometimes get too excited when I get the chance to talk to someone who knows more than me within a subject and I always seem to end up saying more than I should haha, my b. I apologize for the speculative schizo ramblings haha. Ill shorten my rambling questions to this: Does my breakdown of F=G(m1 m2)/r2 being equivalent to F=ma hold water?

                      Originally posted by Ernst View Post
                      Glad to hear that I've been of some help.
                      I'm going to leave it here for now.
                      Happy New Year to you too!
                      BTW, yes, IT as in Information Technology (my profession for about 25 years or so.)

                      Ernst.
                      I've learned radian means root as in what was originally meant by the term 'square root', I've learned that the unit circle can be drastically simplified. More proof that decimals and fractions are unnecessary, the universe is ratios and fractals. More proof that the smallest number is 1(because we are all for one and one for all, both at once, we are the spoon...) I've learned that engineering equations are all based on precision and magnitude. And much much more that would only make me sound crazy if I listed it! You've been alot of help! Thanks!




                      Merry New Year. Lets all start off strong!




                      Last edited by Spells Of Truth; 01-02-2022, 08:10 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I sometimes get too excited when I get the chance to talk to someone who knows more than me within a subject and I always seem to end up saying more than I should haha, my b. I apologize for the speculative schizo ramblings haha. Ill shorten my rambling questions to this: Does my breakdown of F=G(m1 m2)/r2 being equivalent to F=ma hold water?
                        No need to apologize. You are using this forum for its intended purpose and I am free to respond or not or even read your posts.
                        Your last question then... No, I'm afraid it does not.
                        The first equation describes an attractive force that seems to exist between masses, the second how mass resists a force acting on it. These are two fundamentally different things. What we both have shown here above is that the F in both equations has the same unit, as it should, of course. A force is a force no matter what it does or how it comes into existence. And therefore it should always have the same unit. Nobody knows how gravity actually works, we only know that within certain limitations it follows the first equation. The G in that equation is a constant whose value has been derived from experiments and which has been given a unit so that the F ends up with the same units as it does in the second equation.
                        In other words it is a man-made equivalence.

                        Ernst.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ernst View Post
                          No need to apologize. You are using this forum for its intended purpose and I am free to respond or not or even read your posts.
                          Your last question then... No, I'm afraid it does not.
                          The first equation describes an attractive force that seems to exist between masses, the second how mass resists a force acting on it. These are two fundamentally different things. What we both have shown here above is that the F in both equations has the same unit, as it should, of course. A force is a force no matter what it does or how it comes into existence. And therefore it should always have the same unit. Nobody knows how gravity actually works, we only know that within certain limitations it follows the first equation. The G in that equation is a constant whose value has been derived from experiments and which has been given a unit so that the F ends up with the same units as it does in the second equation.
                          In other words it is a man-made equivalence.

                          Ernst.
                          I respect your answers tremendously. Thank you for putting up with my insanity haha. When F=G(m1 m2)/r2 is broken down to its smallest units of measurement then cancellation of terms, F=G(m1 m2)/r2 is exactly equal to F=ma.

                          Either way, thanks for the thought provoking convo! I've learned a ton!


                          Last edited by Spells Of Truth; 01-05-2022, 04:51 AM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X