# Energy Based Coordinate System

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

#### UncertainH

##### Guest
<p>I'm not 100% sure exactly what I'm asking here but bear with me. It seems to me that using our traditional view of space, 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, which we know change is different situations (ie clocks tick at different rates under different circumstances, gravity bends space etc ), is like trying to measure something with a wobbly ruler that keeps changing size. Is there such a thing as an energy based coordinate system where one might model two masses (mass being energy) separated by time. And then If you were interested in distance and clock measurements (clock being different from the time mentioned above) you could apply a transformation to get there.</p><p>I'm not sure I am asking this the right way. Perhaps a simpler way is to just ask what other types of coordinate systems have people used to model physical systems</p>

D

#### DrRocket

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not 100% sure exactly what I'm asking here but bear with me. It seems to me that using our traditional view of space, 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, which we know change is different situations (ie clocks tick at different rates under different circumstances, gravity bends space etc ), is like trying to measure something with a wobbly ruler that keeps changing size. Is there such a thing as an energy based coordinate system where one might model two masses (mass being energy) separated by time. And then If you were interested in distance and clock measurements (clock being different from the time mentioned above) you could apply a transformation to get there.I'm not sure I am asking this the right way. Perhaps a simpler way is to just ask what other types of coordinate systems have people used to model physical systems <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>I have never seen anything quite like what you are describing, and I don't know how you might go about it.&nbsp; I don't think it would work.&nbsp; But there are ways of looking at the dynamics of systems of bodies in an abstract way that use position, momentum, energy, ... as coordinates in a "state space" or "phase space".&nbsp; If you are interested look in a book on classical mechanics and read about Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics.&nbsp; Or you might look in a engineering on control theory and read about state space methods.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

C

#### coeptus

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not 100% sure exactly what I'm asking here but bear with me. It seems to me that using our traditional view of space, 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, which we know change is different situations (ie clocks tick at different rates under different circumstances, gravity bends space etc ), is like trying to measure something with a wobbly ruler that keeps changing size. Is there such a thing as an energy based coordinate system where one might model two masses (mass being energy) separated by time. And then If you were interested in distance and clock measurements (clock being different from the time mentioned above) you could apply a transformation to get there.I'm not sure I am asking this the right way. Perhaps a simpler way is to just ask what other types of coordinate systems have people used to model physical systems <br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As the energy content (velocity) of an object increases, it experiences time at a slower rate and also at a rate that is very easily to accurately calculate.&nbsp; Same to for mass.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>so I am not sure that your concerns are unaddressed in current measurement systems, rather, that such factors just aren't phrased out like you did in the OP.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>{that is pretty close to a compliment, btw, if I understand the OP correctly}&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff00ff">If not for bad Pluck, I'd have no Pluck at all . . .</font></p><p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is your vogon, posting under coeptus, and trying IE and Firefox  to see if either is faster with fewer misloads.  Erf !!</font></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> </div>

C

#### coeptus

##### Guest
<p>I will also take this opprotunity to point out that light (the kind you are looking at from your PC) is pure energy.&nbsp; It is equivalent to mass via Einsteins famous E=MC^2 equation.&nbsp; I also enjoy contemplating that when one hefts a brick (for example) only about 60% of the 'heft' you note is attributable to 'mass', the remainder being the mass equivalent of the energy of motion of the constiuent gluons, quarks, etc.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So, you have never really experienced hefting 100% pure mass (if you want to look at it that way), rather, you get to lob the chimeric, ersatz, diluted crap we are stuck with in this reality.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I WANT SOME PURE MASS TO PLAY WITH !!!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff00ff">If not for bad Pluck, I'd have no Pluck at all . . .</font></p><p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is your vogon, posting under coeptus, and trying IE and Firefox  to see if either is faster with fewer misloads.  Erf !!</font></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> </div>

D

#### derekmcd

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have never seen anything quite like what you are describing, and I don't know how you might go about it.&nbsp; I don't think it would work.&nbsp; But there are ways of looking at the dynamics of systems of bodies in an abstract way that use position, momentum, energy, ... as coordinates in a "state space" or "phase space".&nbsp; If you are interested look in a book on classical mechanics and read about Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics.&nbsp; Or you might look in a engineering on control theory and read about state space methods.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Maybe he's thinking of something along the lines of scalar field theories.&nbsp; Just a guess.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

U

#### UncertainH

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Maybe he's thinking of something along the lines of scalar field theories.&nbsp; Just a guess. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Thanks for the suggestions both you and the Dr. I've been reading.- Both the langrangian mechanics and non-linear scalar field theory seem to be similar to what I was thinking about. A couple of things struck me one was that the langrangian modelling&nbsp;was an interesting way to simplify a problem by applying a different perspective. The other was that&nbsp;in the non-linear scalar field theory length can be thought of as l = h/mc. You can sort of get that by taking E=mc2 and making it equal to the equation of the energy of the photon E = hc/l (l being wavelength). The implication of which is that those forms of energy are somehow the same. Sure mass is a form of energy but I've been thinking of it more as second order energy whereas pure energy is first order. Second order of what, dare I say time. I just think there must be a way to model different forms of energy separated by perhaps different orders and amounts of time and then apply a spacial coordinate system on top of that. Depending then on the values of things like h and c that space would have certain shapes. Any ideas ?</p>

D

#### DrRocket

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for the suggestions both you and the Dr. I've been reading.- Both the langrangian mechanics and non-linear scalar field theory seem to be similar to what I was thinking about. A couple of things struck me one was that the langrangian modelling&nbsp;was an interesting way to simplify a problem by applying a different perspective. The other was that&nbsp;in the non-linear scalar field theory length can be thought of as l = h/mc. You can sort of get that by taking E=mc2 and making it equal to the equation of the energy of the photon E = hc/l (l being wavelength). The implication of which is that those forms of energy are somehow the same. Sure mass is a form of energy but I've been thinking of it more as second order energy whereas pure energy is first order. Second order of what, dare I say time. I just think there must be a way to model different forms of energy separated by perhaps different orders and amounts of time and then apply a spacial coordinate system on top of that. Depending then on the values of things like h and c that space would have certain shapes. Any ideas ? <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>I think that at this point you are going to have to formulate your idea a bit more precisely and rigorously before we can help you.&nbsp; I don't quite see where you are headed,or what your final objective is.</p><p>I do think that you will run into trouble with your notion of forms and "orders" of energy.&nbsp; I don't see how that can work.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Status
Not open for further replies.