Time - Energy Equivalence
by John SkieSwanne
What is time? We can walk backward in space, but never backward in time. It's the great mystery, which prevents us to reach the past.
But... recently I noticed something which I wanted to share with you so that the mystery might start to clear up. I noticed that Time is not only
related to distance and speed... but also might be equivalent (not just related) to energy and mass.
Mass-energy equivalence has been discovered by Albert Einstein in 1905, and it goes as such:
E=mc^2
Which happens to be the most popular equation ever. To those investigative minds who may doubt the equation's validity, I must insist that this
equation can be verified to be true. Merging it with Planck's equation give a modified version of DeBroglie's equation, which accurately predicts
that electron-positron annihilation will give off gamma radiation.
Now, I've noticed that there is a hidden Time component in Einstein's "E=mc^2" equation. I figured that it was possible to reverse this famous
equation so that instead of showing mass-energy equivalence, the equation gives time-energy equivalence (or time-mass equivalence) instead.
The "c" component represents a very specific, fixed speed: light speed (299,792,498 meters per second). As you know, speed is, in fact, reducible to
two components: distance divided by time.
In "c^2", only the distance is squared, not the time component. By this I mean that for instance, if "A" would represent "5 meters covered each 1
second", then "A^2" becomes "25 meters covered in 1 second", and not "25 meters covered in 5 seconds".
For the sake of simplicity, let's pretend for an instant that there's an exotic length unit which some planet around Vega uses, and it's called a
"Joua", and 1 Joua is exactly equal to 59958491.6 of our meters. In this exotic scale, light speed would be equal to 5 Joua per 1 second.
Now all you have to do is take a pen and a paper to compute the inversion of Einstein's equation:
If there's a mass of 3 kilograms, and if the square of 5 Joua per second is equal to 25 Joua per 1 second, then Energy will be equal to 3*((5^2)/1),
or 3*(25). In other words, 75.
E=mc^2
E=m*(the square of 5 joua / 1 second)
E=m*(25 joua / 1 second)
E=m*(25/1)
E=m*(25)
E=3*25
75=3*25
Now let us reverse this.
Let's deduce: What is c^2 equal to? If 75 is equal to 3 multiplied by 25 (75=3*25), then 25 can only be equal to 75 divided by 3 (25=75/3). Which
means the first thing we are going to do is couple the energy component with the mass component:
c^2=E/m
But that's not all. Notice the square (^2) component. To have the pure light speed component, we have to separate "c" from its square. but c (5
joua per 1 second) can't equal 25 on its own, unless the 25 is squareroot-ed.
c=sqrt(E/m)
Now all that's left for us to do is to separate Time from the c component. We know that Time is equal here to 1 second. But 1 cannot give 5 on its
own. Which means, 5 must be divided by another 5, which happens to be the value of the distance component:
T=d/(sqrt(E/m))
So now, without further delay, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the Time-energy (or time-mass) equivalence equation:
Where d is the distance, equal to 299,792,498 meters.
In the past, I often wondered if Time was not a force by itself. Today I learned this is not true, but yet, I can't help but notice how Time is
dependent upon distance, like any other forces...
Anyway. This equation does predict something quite interesting, though - check this out:
If mass of the opposite sign should exist, such as the one predicted by Dragan Hajdukovic's theory, then its equivalent time would stop being
positive. According to current mathematics, Time wouldn't even become negative. It would become un-real. Literally. The equation will include an
imaginary number, and the resulting Time value will be a non-real number. This may imply that Dragan's gravitational dipoles cannot exist in "real"
time; or it may imply that gravitational fields of the opposite sign (if such thing exists at all) have Time which is quite anomalous (and quite
interesting, too!).
Anyway, so this Time-energy equivalence equation is what I recently found out. I don't know what to make of it yet - I'm only scratching the
surface. What say you?
At Time's End,
Swan