|
Curiously:
the laws of classical mechanics and QED seem to be resulting from the math-way of describing.
When two masses collide: a minimilistic math description gives an appearance of the familiar laws.
velocity: directed speed per time
direction: generalisation specification (e.g. any two bounding localities referring to another locality gives specification of direction by mutual agreement (like two astronauts referring to a third (observer) to decide "which way is "up" ?).
speed: distance per time.
time: generalisation specification (as pendulum path is general; but specified by next swing)
distance: generalisation
note:
generalisation + generalisation: specification (like "car" + "red" can give "red car").
specification + specification: generalisation
(like red car + blue bus could give "coloured vehicle" say).
(math counting fills the "could" with "must" by forcing numbers by repeating the pattern and counting repeats; by definition of the number of repeats you get "physics laws" seeming compulsory but this appears to come say from "number" itself.
So:
mass at velocity per time (momentum)
GIVES
generalisation (call: "gen.") (the mass) at
gen.spec. ("generalisation specification" as "directed") gen. (distance) per gen.spec (per time)
GIVES
mv = gen. gen.spec. gen./ gen.spec
cancel the gen.specs
get: gen.gen. /1
get: gen.gen
which gives: spec. (as two generalisations can give "specification").
SO "mv" becomes: "spec".
Get a collision: mv meets mv
So "spec" meets "spec"
So get "gen".
BUT to see your two mv's again after the collision
requires the "gen." become "spec." + "spec." IN GEN. (provided by the generalising effect of: "again") which mathematically minimilistically described seems recalibrates back in time the original "spec.'s" ?
Fuller detail not worked out here. Getting muddled.
A minimilistic math description of the scenario presumably gives math-physics structure out of the numbers and effect of definition interactions.
-dolphin | 
