Is Energy Equivalent to Time?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

We address to example from our life. You go on car. That its moves before purpose of the journey? About wheels and motor we'll not speak - this is simply converting and sending elements.
The obvious answer in 100% events - an energy got at fuel combustion.. The result of chemical reaction... The internal energy of fuel... And here all ended. But that means "the internal energy"?
Let's look at this with the other standpoint. Energy is spent when execution of any work. Herewith we observe a change of the source of energy. It is possible to say that if the source of energy does not change then it possesses only potential ability to make a work. Only changes of the source allows to make a work. This work does changes the receiver - an object(s) of its exhibit. Practically, the source will send to receiver it's own change.
Changes of the source and receiver are occurs at time.
Since, each object exists in its cycle of time, it is possible to draw a conclusion:
A SOURCE SENDs to RECEIVER ITS TIME.
Really at fuel combustion ( in example with car ) a cycle of existence of the source (benzine) does ends. It changes in a new object - a products of combustion. Time of fuel goes to the other object through a zero point- a heat (light practically) radiation.

 

[arivero]

I'd like to heard some similar reasoning using inverse of time, instead of time. 2pi/t is proportional to Energy, people says.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

could someone translate that into a tad bit better english as I'm not exactly sure that made sense physically.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by arivero
I'd like to heard some similar reasoning using inverse of time, instead of time. 2pi/t is proportional to Energy, people says.

Dear Alejandro Rivero.
You have correct noted the word "inversion". This is keyword in my point.
I have really done the inversion of existing presentations.. Hereon all have got up on its place. We shall look that is got as a result of inversion, now.
The Light this zero point. Only zero point has an absolute characteristic (speed of light) for any frame of reference and horizon of event. The Light this fluctuation of the ambience named "vacuum". The Vacuum this STILL space - time. This memory keeping all passed events. So, to reach the speed of the light means to stop the time for given object. Indeed this is reached by not via increasing of energy of the object but via its decreasing. The loss of energy always accompanied with the light radiation. The maximum of energy has a still object possessing mass. Than more a mass of the object that more its energy.
This my statement does proves well known mass-energy relation
E=mc^2
From it follows that internal energy of the mass in (mc^2) times greater than its energy under full conversion of the mass in light radiation.In the same way it is possible to say that mass constantly "moves" at the speed of "c" for light (zero point). What is a this motion? If the light (this zero point) presents itself past of the object that its "motion " is directed on overcoming of TIME i.e. on maintenance of the condition "present". "c" this velocity of time indeed. The Energy defines the duration of the cycle of existence (or life) of the object. In other words the energy of the object this a spare of its "present of time". If object radiates then it loses the energy (time) by quantum. Changed on quantum of time object becomes "present object" but "previous object" in the manner of light radiation (photons) moves over to past. Herewith, the complex object "gets old". If radiation does not stop then object through row of the intermediate conditions stops its existence -he dies. The complex objects have a compensation mechanism for regeneration of its mass (time) inwardly its Time cycle. They do this to account of the mass --> energy --> time of other object(s).
Really, this picture completely corresponds to whole accumulated
experience of mankind. I have simply overwinded the existing picture in justment. This action has avoided the existing contradictions and has removed the cover of mystery from fundamental notions. All of these are reduced to one - T I M E.

Michael F. Dmitriyev

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
could someone translate that into a tad bit better english as I'm not exactly sure that made sense physically.

My vision of universe, as a creation of God, not clinging to concrete language, though my native language is Russian. However my apologies for inaccuracy in English. The reason - an absence of alive contact.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

No problem.

Perhaps then you could communicate your idea in the language of physics...that is to say, mathematics?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
No problem.

Perhaps then you could communicate your idea in the language of physics...that is to say, mathematics?

Seems my glance so radically differs from the existing one, that does bring a readers in confusion. Though my ideas is a logical conclusions, which are made on intuitive level sooner , they can be use as a base for development of new directions in science. I do not see the greater problems in their registration on correspondence to necessary requirements. By the way, far from all phenomenas in universe can be described in the language of mathematics.
I wait the feedback essentially of my thread.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Well unless I see some firm backing then I have to dismiss it as crackpottery.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Well unless I see some firm backing then I have to dismiss it as crackpottery.

Is it means that you wait the someone's else opinions not having your own? I hope someone have an own opinion here. I am waiting.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I don't mind opinons, and maybe your idea does have meritt. But without something solid to rely on and shown how to it is proven and what it can do, its not very useful, especially if it can't be communicated.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I don't mind opinons, and maybe your idea does have meritt. But without something solid to rely on and shown how to it is proven and what it can do, its not very useful, especially if it can't be communicated.

Ok.I understand your desire to show privity in the some general questions of the science, though you forget to mention your own contribution (if it exist).
I am ready to answer the concrete questions.
But I have no time and desire to concern with the empty dispute. Spare your and my time, Brad_Ad23, please. Time is inconvertible for all of us, regrettably.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Ah the hubris of someone without the math. Though I look forward to hearing about your wonderful discoveries if they prove true in science preprints.

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Well unless I see some firm backing then I have to dismiss it as crackpottery.

Actually, Michael is correct in his understanding of the movement of massive objects as they travel through time. He has just restated one of the principles of Einstein's theory of relativity. And one of the underlying implications to his theory is that energy and time are equivalent, at least at a conceptual level. The correlation between energy and time is that when an object has more energy, it is far more likely to move forward in time faster than an object of lesser energy. This correlation explains Michael's conceptual reasoning for the principle.

Basically, in Newtonian physics, d=rt (where d is simply x2,y2,z2 - x1,y1,z1) or t=d/r. But to Einstein, d included a fourth dimension as well. So the formula transforms into t=d/r (where d is now x2,y2,z2,t2 - x1,y1,z1,t1) and the sum of the differential spatial coordinates (x, y, and z) and the time coordinate (t) must always equal c. So (x2,y2,z2 - x1,y1,z1) + (t2 – t1) = c. So the faster you move through the first three dimensions, in a given unit of time, the slower you move through the fourth dimension to make up for it. The idea being that at rest you are still traveling at the speed of light, only your motion is confined to the fourth dimension and not the first three. So your location stays the same, but your time still moves forward at its fastest rate. For more information, a good book that summarizes this and much more is Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe.

Michael, even though this has been formulated long ago, good job for coming to this conclusion on your own!

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by ewoodlief
Actually, Michael is correct in his understanding of the movement of massive objects as they travel through time. He has just restated one of the principles of Einstein's theory of relativity. And one of the underlying implications to his theory is that energy and time are equivalent, at least at a conceptual level. The correlation between energy and time is that when an object has more energy, it is far more likely to move forward in time faster than an object of lesser energy. This correlation explains Michael's conceptual reasoning for the principle.

Basically, in Newtonian physics, d=rt (where d is simply x2,y2,z2 - x1,y1,z1) or t=d/r. But to Einstein, d included a fourth dimension as well. So the formula transforms into t=d/r (where d is now x2,y2,z2,t2 - x1,y1,z1,t1) and the sum of the differential spatial coordinates (x, y, and z) and the time coordinate (t) must always equal c. So (x2,y2,z2 - x1,y1,z1) + (t2 – t1) = c. So the faster you move through the first three dimensions, in a given unit of time, the slower you move through the fourth dimension to make up for it. The idea being that at rest you are still traveling at the speed of light, only your motion is confined to the fourth dimension and not the first three. So your location stays the same, but your time still moves forward at its fastest rate. For more information, a good book that summarizes this and much more is Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe.

Michael, even though this has been formulated long ago, good job for coming to this conclusion on your own!

ewoodlief,
Thanks for your professionally made ordering of the some chaotic writing about idea which have lit up me half year ago. It remain my property and high achievement (for me), because I have really come to it independently and has paid for it by the reproaches in crackpottery received at my address. Confirmation of my correctness at some stages of searching for a true is very important, indeed . It adds the hopes for achievement of success.

Michael.