|
Yes, I was neglecting the proportionality constants and only doing dimensional analysis but I was also doing "perspective analysis".
The "jump" has nothing to do with "proportionality".
It is purely a way to conserve the information that when I talk of "length" and "reference length" to describe "distance" and "time";
one of these is prefaced as "reference".
Although either of these could have been so-prefaced; I felt it necessary to maintain the fact in the analysis that there were two perspectives (2-D) involved.
It is quite likely that what this means is that the "jump" is what mathematicians use sq.rt -1 for. Complex numbers are 2-D numbers, so represent a 2-D perspective. I am suggesting that
when doing dimensional analysis one can also do "perspective analysis" and portray this by keeping track of the number of "jumps" that occur as one involves "reference" concepts (like "reference distance (length)" for "time").
Here is another reason why "mass" might be seen as "negative velocity":
Suppose in the whole universe there is just one speed. So we have a number of subdivisions of one length; that is so many equal units of a reference length (effectively a linear clock-hand movement distance) per the movement length.
How can one talk in such a simple universe of direction? What could direction mean? In real life, you can take a direction by looking around you and noticing different objects in different directions. That is, you notice different densities of your surroundings.
In the simple universe containing one velocity, the density all around is mostly just an equal vacuum- so how can one talk of direction? I said "mostly" because in the NEGATIVE direction of the "velocity" there is a higher density of marks (or clock ticks) from the calibrating length (clock) than in the unknown future of the velocity (which just aims into the vacuum).
So here the very concept of a "velocity", which requires the concept "direction"; is based on the negative of that velocity where an equal density gradient is found. Mass! And looking at Feynman's QED it sure looks like it's all about "time density" which I equated with mass; so I think QED and gravity will turn out to be different views of the same theory (which I think you hinted at in a post once when you said that they were different perspectives or something).
(Which may explain why those theories interfere with each other; people combining them would be double defining). My guess is that relativity is also the same thing from a different perspective.
Any errors in logic?
thanks,
-Alan |
