energy of motion and of rest

[AntonioLao]

Classical mechanics defines energy of motion as the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy always appears as the positive term in the total energy equation regardless whether it describes a conservative or nonconservative system. On the other hand, classical mechanics defines energy of rest as the potential energy. Surprisingly, potential energy can appear as a negative term or a positive term in the total energy equation.
On the one hand, the Hamiltonian energy function expresses the absolute total energy as the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy, both positive. On the other hand, the Lagrangian energy function expresses the relative total energy as the difference of kinetic energy and potential energy (both were used in the early and later developments of quantum mechanics). The kinetic theory of thermodynamics uses an average energy function which suppresses the distinct properties of kinetic energy and potential energy by inventing a new physical property called absolute temperature. The successful discovery and applications of the kinetic theory of gases in the hand of Boltzmann and others allowed Planck to usher in the quantum revolution which is a theory emphasizing the dominant kinetic properties and the quantization of the first power of energy. Although the energy of rest is implied in Einstein’s E=mc, it was not clearly stated until the advent of Dirac’s relativistic quantum mechanics which is truly a quantum theory of the electromagnetic radiation. In its relativistic total energy equation the total energy is squared, the linear momentum is squared, and Einstein’s rest energy (mc) is also squared: E=(cp)+(mc), where (cp) represents energy of motion and (mc) represents energy of rest. Nonetheless, a true theory of square of energy is fundamentally a theory of difference of squares, for example as the product of the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian energy functions: (T+V)(T-V)=T-V. This new theory defines a pair of infinitesimal force as j(1) and j(2) and a pair of infinitesimal metric as Y(1) and Y(2). Then the infinitesimal square of energy e=j(1)´Y(1)×j(2)´Y(2). Expanded by Lagrange’s identity gives e=j(1)×Y(2)×j(2)×Y(1)-j(1)×j(2)Y(1)×Y(2) or e=j(1)×j(2)Y(1)×Y(2)-j(1)×Y(2)×j(2)×Y(1).

[labelwench]

Antonio, I've just got to ask!

You seem capable of describing anything and everything with a mathematical formula.

Is there a mathematical formula to describe homo sapiens?

If so, does it differentiate between the male and female of the species based on the following:

Classical mechanics defines energy of motion as the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy always appears as the positive term in the total energy equation regardless whether it describes a conservative or nonconservative system. On the other hand, classical mechanics defines energy of rest as the potential energy. Surprisingly, potential energy can appear as a negative term or a positive term in the total energy equation

Regards,

Labelwench

P.S. - Did any of your soybeans make it to maturity? We've had an excellent year for greens, carrots and kohlrabi.

[SteveA]

Antonio, I've just got to ask!

You seem capable of describing anything and everything with a mathematical formula.

Is there a mathematical formula to describe homo sapiens?

If so, does it differentiate between the male and female of the species based on the following:



Regards,

Labelwench

P.S. - Did any of your soybeans make it to maturity? We've had an excellent year for greens, carrots and kohlrabi.

Your comment here reminds me of something I've wondered about for a long time - could it be that there's only one sex, and people see the opposite sex as "inverted" from this?

I keep wondering if there's some mathematical transformation that describes the differences between men and women ... yes, I'm a warped nerd ... that's what warped nerds think about in their spare time

[sillysally]

Your comment here reminds me of something I've wondered about for a long time - could it be that there's only one sex, and people see the opposite sex as "inverted" from this?

I keep wondering if there's some mathematical transformation that describes the differences between men and women ... yes, I'm a warped nerd ... that's what warped nerds think about in their spare time

Yup, everyone is a woman. A man's thingy is just an enlarged woman thingy. AND women have iny's and outy's, men only have outy's so there you go GIRL! My husband is really a severely butch lesbian, with an outy. I have a theory about this and virgin births, women came first and men evolved later. Another poster mentioned a hymen in that thread I started a long time ago and stated that the first intercourse was a rape. The hymen is what seals the deal that we weren't originally supposed to have hanky panky. And women can jackulate and that fluid has trace amounts of semen in it, our ancient goodies.

[SteveA]

Yup, everyone is a woman. A man's thingy is just an enlarged woman thingy. AND women have iny's and outy's, men only have outy's so there you go GIRL! My husband is really a severely butch lesbian, with an outy. I have a theory about this and virgin births, women came first and men evolved later. Another poster mentioned a hymen in that thread I started a long time ago and stated that the first intercourse was a rape. The hymen is what seals the deal that we weren't originally supposed to have hanky panky. And women can jackulate and that fluid has trace amounts of semen in it, our ancient goodies.

You have a way with words, Sally

It may just be because I'm a man, but women are just more physically beautiful IMO. Men have rougher features and aren't soft have scratchy hair etc. (of course men are 'valuable' too ... but in terms of physical beauty, I think nature handed the edge to women, then again that may also be a product of social conditioning)

But yes, if you compare men and women physically, there aren't a lot of differences except in how things are "laid out".

But let's assume that everyone saw themself with sexual features as being the same as how others saw themselves too - we could all be men or women or appear to outself as something that may not be specifically male or female (It just seems like that could be true, but I'm not certain exactly how).

Anyway, if that was the case, then how could it be that other people appeared as two different sexes? It would immediately seem that someone should either see themselves as the same sex as everyone else (which would really just be describing the property of being human and not specifically male or female, so in a sense there is a single sex - human), or alternately see everyone else as the opposite sex (the "other"), but that's not the case.

The only way it would seem possible that my suggestion could be true would be if we lined everyone up and at each step between people the sex was altered - same, different, same, different, etc.

Now here's an interesting thought - imagine that a child never leaves the womb but grows inside a parent - in this case the immediate "outside" for ones environment would be "inside" the other and we have one of the most obvious differences in terms of sexual organs, though the general "map" between male male and female sexual organs is not actually very different, just reshaped or rearranged - the further we moved away from this, the more similarly things could appear to be.

Anyway, it's not easy to figure out how such could be the case, but there still appear to be reasons why this could be true. (It'll just be another one of things that sticks in the back of my mind waiting for the pieces to fit right).

[SteveA]

Here's an addition to the last post (sorry Antonio, if it's drifted a little off topic):

If it takes a serial arrangement to alternate between sexes, this doesn't appear anything easy just looking around, but consider it looking 'backwards' in time:

People have two parents - male and female, and similarly parents have parents, male and female etc.

So if we passed a line 'backwards' in time through a mother and the father and then through the mother's mother and mother's father and then the father's mother etc. You could have an alternating chain stretching backward in time as ancestors of alternating sexes.

If we look at the chromosomes, there's either an XX or XY pair. If we considered one of these to perform the 'sexual inversion' operation, such as the X (though we can do the same with the Y as well), then an X means "opposite sex" and XX would get back to the same sex, which could be seen similar to a Y=XX.

So a man could be similar to XXX, where a pair of Xs is Y.

If we made a giant evolutionary strand of human DNA as X chromosomes XXXXX....., then a person themself might be considered as no inversion at all (which is in some ways similar to a pure Y or pure male, but that's also similar to a woman in more physical terms of XX, whereas a man physically could be more similar to an XXX).

Anyway, you could break these Xs up in various ways like this (with each being an "embedding" operation that potentially toggles many inside/outside characteristics):

none would be similar to an inner self.
X would be more of a physical self.
XX would be similar to ones mother
XXX (=X(XX) or (XX)X) would be similar to ones possible fathers (it's more obvious who the mother of a child is ... but it can be more difficult to know who the father is ).
XXXX = a mother's mother
XXXXX = YXXX or XYXX or XXYX or XXXY. So that could be similar to either the mother of your possible fathers or a possible father of your mother.
....

Consider though ultimately it appears an exponential growth, unless there were an exponentially larger number of people alive in the past, it could have expanded like this and some of these ancestors would have to be the same person.

Hmmm... humanity as a single thread of DNA?

My husband is really a severely butch lesbian, with an outy.

I've said that before too. I think I've got an inner lesbian ... the male equipment is to spice things up for her

[AntonioLao]

Is there a mathematical formula to describe homo sapiens?

pentagonal beings: one head, two arms, and two legs while the rest being of equal values. Moreover, must not forget the five senses. There is no basic differentiations except the parts for sexual reproduction.

Did any of your soybeans make it to maturity?

I had less than breakeven harvest but being organic was worth the efforts of watering twice a day for approx 3 months.

[sillysally]

You have a way with words, Sally

It may just be because I'm a man, but women are just more physically beautiful IMO. Men have rougher features and aren't soft have scratchy hair etc. (of course men are 'valuable' too ... but in terms of physical beauty, I think nature handed the edge to women, then again that may also be a product of social conditioning)

But yes, if you compare men and women physically, there aren't a lot of differences except in how things are "laid out".

But let's assume that everyone saw themself with sexual features as being the same as how others saw themselves too - we could all be men or women or appear to outself as something that may not be specifically male or female (It just seems like that could be true, but I'm not certain exactly how).

Anyway, if that was the case, then how could it be that other people appeared as two different sexes? It would immediately seem that someone should either see themselves as the same sex as everyone else (which would really just be describing the property of being human and not specifically male or female, so in a sense there is a single sex - human), or alternately see everyone else as the opposite sex (the "other"), but that's not the case.

The only way it would seem possible that my suggestion could be true would be if we lined everyone up and at each step between people the sex was altered - same, different, same, different, etc.

Now here's an interesting thought - imagine that a child never leaves the womb but grows inside a parent - in this case the immediate "outside" for ones environment would be "inside" the other and we have one of the most obvious differences in terms of sexual organs, though the general "map" between male male and female sexual organs is not actually very different, just reshaped or rearranged - the further we moved away from this, the more similarly things could appear to be.

Anyway, it's not easy to figure out how such could be the case, but there still appear to be reasons why this could be true. (It'll just be another one of things that sticks in the back of my mind waiting for the pieces to fit right).

Hmm, maybe you lost me but I have seen lots of women that look like men at the Arnold Classic and there are hermaphidites too. A man can take female hormones and he will start to look like a women and vice versa. Women that juice also start to grow male genitalia, men can grow breasts with hormones. Also boy babies have more estrogen in them than girls and then they have that problem again when men get old and that's why they get boobs naturally.

[sillysally]

Here's an addition to the last post (sorry Antonio, if it's drifted a little off topic):

If it takes a serial arrangement to alternate between sexes, this doesn't appear anything easy just looking around, but consider it looking 'backwards' in time:

The only thing I see is women being older than dirt and god. We were around long before the earth was a twinkle in the gods eye.

Yeah, sorry Tony.

[SteveA]

The only thing I see is women being older than dirt and god. We were around long before the earth was a twinkle in the gods eye.

Yeah, sorry Tony.

Yes, that's definitely an interesting thought.

(Though if God was the only man, then he's got some work to do! If (s)he's actually a Goddess, that works fine too ... )