Having divined the dimensions of momentum in terms of length 
and time, the next job is to see what light this finding can 
cast on the dimensions of energy.

In my Note No.103/87 I wrote,

    ====================================================
    However, there is an important difference between
    the hierarchical forms of the two conservation laws. 
    Whereas the momentum equation is dimensionless, the 
    energy equation is not. This hierarchical hiatus 
    between the traditional anthropocentric concepts of 
    energy and momentum has important physical 
    implications but it is not appropriate to elucidate 
    these in this note. 
    ====================================================

It wasn't appropriate because at the time I only had the 
dimmest of notions how to go about it. 

However, Saviour............
("Despite the appellation, he is not an eccentric nut-case 
    - perhaps closer to genius", as Jones puts it) 
............................has provided the inspiration 
to tackle the problem successfully.

To get you in the right mood, let's consider the following 
scenario. 

Lois and Clark are watching a body move from left to right 
at a constant velocity.

Lois says, I see that the body has the property of 
[M].[L]/[T] momentum.

Clark says, indeed it has. Not only that but it also has 
the property of [M].[L]/[T].[L]/[T] kinetic energy.

Lois is very puzzled. She can't possibly figure out where 
Clark gets his second velocity from. Surely Clark must be 
seeing the same picture of the moving body as she is.
Then it slowly dawns on her. Clark Kent must be Superman. 
She always had her suspicions. He's using his X-ray vision 
to penetrate the outside of the body and he can see things 
moving about within.

Let's now substitute the dimensions of [T]/[L] for [M]
and see what things look like.


                   [T]   [L][L]
    [energy]   =   --- . ------
                   [L]   [T][T]

That doesn't look right. It's all unbalanced. It's not 
hierarchically symmetrical. Remembering the minimalist
Mendeleev table we can put some brackets in to balance 
things up.

                   [-].[T]   [L].[L]
    [energy]   =   ------- . -------
                   [-].[L]   [T].[T]

Now, I ask you 8-) , what can possibly be missing from
those brackets. It's obvious isn't it. That's right, T
and L. Which means, Vortexians, that somewhere along
the line someone has cocked up.  ;-)

The dimensions of M in equation for kinetic energy are
[T]^2/[L]^2

So now we have filled in the missing gap between Grimer
mass ([T]/[L]) and Saviour mass ([T]^3/[L]^3) with
Cockup mass ([T]^2/[L]^2) and 

                   [T].[T]   [L].[L]
    [energy]   =   ------- . -------
                   [L].[L]   [T].[T]

So how did such a blooper come about.     

Simone Weil put her finger on the root cause in an 
unfinished essay written in 1941 entitled, 
"La Science et nous". I've posted it before on 
Vortex but it bears repeating.  8-)

   =====================================
   What is disastrous is not the rejection of classical
   science but the way it has been rejected. It is wrongly
   believed it could progress indefinitely and it ran into
   a dead end about the year 1900; but scientists failed
   to stop at the same time in order to contemplate and
   reflect upon the barrier, they did not try to describe
   it and define it and, having taken it into account, to
   draw some general conclusion from it; instead they rushed
   violently past it, leaving classical science behind them.
   And why should we be surprised at this? For are they not
   paid to forge continually ahead? Nobody advances in his
   career, or reputation, or gets a Nobel prize, by standing
   still. To cease voluntarily from forging ahead, any
   brilliantly gifted scientist would need to be a saint or
   a hero, and why should he be a saint or a hero? With rare
   exceptions there are none to be found among the members
   of other professions. So the scientists forged ahead
   without revising anything, because any revision would
   have seemed a retrogression; they merely made an addition.
   ========================================

Quite so. When they found that mass was not a measure of matter
but merely a property of matter like temperature, or colour, or 
weight, they didn't stop to ask themselves, 

"What are the implications of this discovery?"

The definition of conventional mass is based on linear motion,
But Kinetic Energy involves the internal motions within a body,
closed path motions in other words.

Before they knew that mass could be transmuted into motion they
had reason not to realise that mass and matter were not indissolubly 
(cf. the bloodyarchitect joke in a previous post.)
 
Now as you might imagine, when the waves of cognitive difference 
have finally died down, all this will have some pretty interesting
consequences.

There would seem to be a Jacob's ladder of scale for motion.
I would guess that electric field flow comes below mass and 
magnetic field flow comes below electric.

Therefore the Rowe effect seems eminently plausible to me.

I wonder which country will be the first to develop the Rowe
process. Not mine, that's for sure. Probably all those eager
beavers who built the Pacific end of the American railway.

Aspden has said of the Rowe process

     =====================================================
     In conclusion, I feel obliged to draw attention 
     to the fact that the generation of hydrogen from 
     the aether, if pursued on a large scale, could, in
     the long term, be destructive of life on Earth 
     because our oxygen supply is limited and by creating 
     water as we burn up our atmospheric oxygen resource
     we merely add a few metres to the levels of our oceans 
     to leave us with only nitrogen to breathe. Some other 
     energy resource is needed and that brings me to our 
     next and final topic of discussion.
     ======================================================

but I can't see why it would be any worse than burning fossil
fuels. Isn't oxygen buffered in some way or other.

I was musing on last night the way things come in fours. 

Four horsemen of the Apocalypse 

Empedocles/Aristotle's four elements: earth, air, fire and water. ... 
I rather go for that one. A good symbolic tool.

And of course, one mustn't forget, 

          ============================
          Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
          Guard the bed that I lie on:
            Four corners to my bed
            Four angels round my head,
          One to watch and one to pray
          And two to bear my soul away.
          ============================

Cheers

Grimer

Reply via email to