A tribute to Godel

[roundhousekick]

I'd like to give my utmost gratitutde to Godel and his paradox. It saved me in the worst time of my TOE quest and helped me discover the meaning of life.

Godel's paradox is the trigger sentence for my TOE.

"Nothing is commplete. Everything is complete."

[roundhousekick]

A complexity or a mistake...

Kinetic energy...momentum... perhalf this is the most obvious and oldest case current science has been ignoring. One is a function of a velocity squared while the other one is a function of linear velocity. What does it matter when s=1/2at^2? It doesn't... perhalf that wasn't the central philosophy of Leibniz and Newton. After reading various work by Leibniz, the answer apparantly came as I predicted. It is not Fs or Ft should we be discussing but rather 1/2mv^2 or mv^2 is the kinetic energy! That is the debate between Leibniz and Newton about. The property of elastic and inelastic collision. A ball dropping to the ground bounce back up to its height is indeed a description of mv^2. If a force F applied a duration of time t, the mass object reach speed v. In order to stop an object in a short time, a large force F will applied at a small time t. The energy necessary to do this is exactly the energy given by the small force. However, to bounce back to original height, another force F and time t must applied. In every action, there exist an equal and opposite reaction, thus a doubling effect exist!
Can this be.... Can this be the blockage that prevent us from uniting the forces of nature. It has been there all along...occuring in every collision, vibration, dancing in front of our eyes like an illusionist. Have we ignore the bubble gap in the foundation and continue on with our infrastructure. The wind blows, our structure swings... We analyze the wind problem and develope dampeners and wind deflector and continued on building. The building cries for its pain lies deep within...yet unable to speak.

[roundhousekick]

dynamic, static, and Newton's laws....

2/F=ma
3/For every action, there exist an equal and opposite reaction.

It seems obvious one is describing an object in motion while the other one ambigiously describing some state of interaction. What should one be interpreting the third law as? In what situation?

This has been long my dilemma. As for static analysis, the third law has been much useful and it holds true for engineering applications. However, will it hold for dynamic cases? if it is, then wouldn't that be a redundant to have the second law? This cannot be for I hold that mass times acceleration cannot be a force. The simple reason is it describing a force. One can easily sees this when ask to draw a force diagram of a free fall object. There would only be 1 force. However, if one is ask to draw a force diagram of an object sitting still, there would be 2 forces, the equal and opposite. It is then reasonable to say that an object weight is the experience of both forces acting against each other! Therefore, the weight (static), is twice the force experience by gravity(dynamic). Thus, limiting to gravity, a new paradigm can be establish.

"A couple force in static is always twice the force in motion"
Then,
The energy require to lift a mass to height h is mgh where mg(static/going up) = 2ma(dynamic/done by gravity) .

Such a paradigm now allow us to expend half of the energy to bring a mass to height h simply by accelerate it sideway to velocity v and change it direction via centrifugal force.

This can be seen by the concept of comercial airplane lift off. The airplane is accelerate to speed v, then use the wing dynamic(lift, which is the exploitation of the centrifugal force) to bring the airplane up. I would argue that if Nasa bring its rocket up by horizontal take off, it will save half of the energy due to gravity.

[roundhousekick]

Unify Coulomb's constant using Newtorian mechanics...

In order to understand the logic of this process, one must revisit the notion of a force. What is a force? As Feynman pointed out, this question has caused too much trauma to the intellectual minds already. Perhalf it is simple to put it this way: A force is tangle to mass and motion. These will be the assumption nature of a force applicable to this process.

Does a force move? Yes
how does it move? through relative fundamental particles
what are relative fundamental particles? just a smaller mass sytem

Let us start out with a mass moving in a straight line with velocity V. There exist a constant force pointing radially outward in the orthogonal plane of motion. Perhalf if one is clever, he would recognize this is the centrifugal force with centers locate at infinity. The magnitude of this centrifugal force is greatest near the mass and disappear with the distance squared. Why? because of the geometric expansion of a circle. If we capture the moving mass and send it around with radius r, we have created a concentrated pair force with magnitude of m(v^2/r ). This line of force also has a component moving not only inward to the center, but also outward to space through fundamental particles. It is fair to ask what is the characterisic of this force? Since it is a line of force, the better of this is to catch it in intensity. The intensity will of course diminish with the squared of the distance. The magnitude of it, however, isn't just m(v^2/r), but m(v^2/r) multiply by how frequent it comes by, namely, the frequency! Now let us move on to electromagnetic...

All these numbers are taken from the net so their exact value is judge on the relative basis. Furthermore, it has been broken down to standard metric system. More specifically, this is the case of the simple hydrogen atom.

Electron mass= 9.1 x 10^-31 kg
atomic radius (H) = 50pm or 5x10^-11 m
electron orbit velocity = 2.5x10^6 m/s (this changes with atoms)
The frequency is then obtain by the orbit velocity/2pi(r) = 8x10^15 cycles/sec

Using Newtorian mechanic to calculate the centrifugal pair force m(v^2/r) = 1.14x10^-7N

The final magnitude in intensity would be the multiplication of this force by its frequency = 9.12x10^8

The Coulomb constant Ke= 8.987x10^9 using speed of light in term of space property.