[timer]

As a new visitor, this may sound kind of silly, but here are 2 questions that will lead you to your TOE : #1 : Can you demonstrate a time event that is NOT a kinetic energy event? #2 : Can you demonstrate this infinity you constantly refer to? The correct answers will solve the above title...

[Guille]

FIRST, hi timer, welcome.

Originally Posted by timer 1 : Can you demonstrate a time event that is NOT a kinetic energy event?

A ball moving upwars from the earth. that is gravitational potential energy, not kinetic energy. Or maybe, because energy is an abstrasct concept and can't be visualized, you should use the fact that is used around many threads in this forum, which is, time depends on motion. and it's true. and a TOE should have nothing to do with time not happening with motion, because time woudln't exist without motion, because time IS the motion. I don't see what the infinite things is about.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by timer Can you demonstrate a time event that is NOT a kinetic energy event?

For an isolated system, such as our universe, the total energy is a constant. This is the basis for the law of energy conservation. This is saying that the time rate of change of total energy is zero. And this is more true iff the potential energy is exactly equal to the kinetic energy such that the Lagrangian is exactly zero. If that is the case, then we won't be here to talk about it since a universe based on perfect equilibrium will never evolve.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao For an isolated system, such as our universe, the total energy is a constant. This is the basis for the law of energy conservation. This is saying that the time rate of change of total energy is zero. And this is more true iff the potential energy is exactly equal to the kinetic energy such that the Lagrangian is exactly zero. If that is the case, then we won't be here to talk about it since a universe based on perfect equilibrium will never evolve.

Yu already explained me Lagragian,

but what is it their for?

sometimes I think scientist yust have too much free time,a dn so invent eqautions that nobody understands but them, to feel better. (hah)

[timer]

There is no such thing as "time" in and of itself. Time is delta kinetic energy, from some potential energy source. A man with one clock knows what time it is, if he has 2 clocks he's never quite...sure... To wit, un-linked clocks(no master-slave relationship)will diverge(run at different speeds)even if they are atomic clocks kept in the same room under stable conditions. You can run a movie fast or slow, even hit the pause button on your VCR, yes? Look at all the world around you. Things run faster or slower, or not at all, thus t=dKE; time is the rate of kinetic energy release from a higher potential energy(PE) reservoir. Yes, you can put KE into a system, ie, increase its PE, but you don't see/sense/detect that increase in PE directly as that would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics : energy is never created or destroyed, only transferred. You can ONLY see/sense/detect the dKE coming OUT of a PE reservoir, never going IN. Thus if you can't get this first part of the equation : t=dKE there is no use moving on to the full equation/TOE.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE but what is it their for?

the Lagrangian is used to see how a system evolves with the flow of time. Like the swing of a pendulum, the equilibrium state is dynamic, it oscillates between two extreme quantities (e.g. potential and kinetic energy) but never actually reached the value of zero vertical position, because at the vertical position, the pendulum has a tendency to swing to the other direction. So the time evolution of the Lagrangian is called the action.



where the Lagrangian L is the difference between kinetic energy T and potential energy V.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by timer There is no such thing as "time" in and of itself.

Do you mean absolute time? I agree, absolute time does not exist. But a relative and proper time does exist for all inertial frames of reference where the clock is at a relative rest. This has been well demonstrated from experiments based on Einstein's special theory of relativity.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Do you mean absolute time? I agree, absolute time does not exist. But a relative and proper time does exist for all inertial frames of reference where the clock is at a relative rest. This has been well demonstrated from experiments based on Einstein's special theory of relativity.

what is the diff between absolute time and normal time?

For timer, if time depends in KE (which does) then we should had conected them via eqautions. the one you give, but....although it owuldn't be the key of the TOE, because what does conecting time with KE has to do with unifying forces?

[timer]

You are having a tough "time" with this, like learning how to ride a bike for the first "time", a little wobbly. Maybe the next term will begin to clarify it for you : t=dKE=m where m means mass, either inertial or gravitational mass. I'm not the first person to make this simple observation : time is mass, or mass-time. As to Einstein, his term "rest mass" is an oxymoron. "rest" means a momentum state, mass means a change of state. Newton's first : an object will continue moving in a straight line(momentum, locally, internally), until an external force is impressed on it(mass-time change of state). Thus "rest mass", taken literally means momentum-mass, direct opposites. Heisenberg's "delta momentum" term, to define the quantum area, h=dMxdPv, is also an oxymoron. "delta" means a rate of change of something as in dKE, but M(Momentum)means no change of state. Thus "delta momentum" taken literally means : variable rate of change of no change of state. dM actually began in 1827 with Simon DeLaPlace : energy is velocity times momentum; then Planck(1900) : the quantum is an area defined by q x p where q means dM and p means dPv(delta Particle velocity). Thus Heisenberg was just parroting what DeLaPlace and Planck had previously said. His idea for a german/nazi atomic bomb was to fly the whole nuclear pile in a plane and drop it, pulling all the control rods at once...interesting story... So, if you can make it this far : t=dKE=m you'll be ready for the next quantum leap in understanding....

[Guille]

Originally Posted by timer You are having a tough "time" with this, like learning how to ride a bike for the first "time", a little wobbly. Maybe the next term will begin to clarify it for you : t=dKE=m where m means mass, either inertial or gravitational mass. I'm not the first person to make this simple observation : time is mass, or mass-time. As to Einstein, his term "rest mass" is an oxymoron. "rest" means a momentum state, mass means a change of state. Newton's first : an object will continue moving in a straight line(momentum, locally, internally), until an external force is impressed on it(mass-time change of state). Thus "rest mass", taken literally means momentum-mass, direct opposites. Heisenberg's "delta momentum" term, to define the quantum area, h=dMxdPv, is also an oxymoron. "delta" means a rate of change of something as in dKE, but M(Momentum)means no change of state. Thus "delta momentum" taken literally means : variable rate of change of no change of state. dM actually began in 1827 with Simon DeLaPlace : energy is velocity times momentum; then Planck(1900) : the quantum is an area defined by q x p where q means dM and p means dPv(delta Particle velocity). Thus Heisenberg was just parroting what DeLaPlace and Planck had previously said. His idea for a german/nazi atomic bomb was to fly the whole nuclear pile in a plane and drop it, pulling all the control rods at once...interesting story... So, if you can make it this far : t=dKE=m you'll be ready for the next quantum leap in understanding....

ok, I'm in armony with this. But the actual fact you are stating is that mass or m equals time, or t. or maybe not exactly is time, but is the same concept. so, mass is another dimension?