Authors: Espen Gaarder Haug
Over the past few years I have presented a theory of modern atomism supported by mathematics [1, 2]. In each area of analysis undertaken in this work, the theory leads to the same mathematical end results as Einstein’s special relativity theory when using Einstein-Poincar ́e synchronized clocks. In addition, atomism is grounded in a form of quantization that leads to upper boundary limits on a long series of results in physics, where the upper boundary limits traditionally have led to infinity challenges. In 2014, I introduced a new concept that I coined “time-speed” and showed that this was a way to distinguish mass from energy. Mass can be seen as time-speed and energy as speed. Mass can also be expressed in the normal way in form of kg (or pounds) and in this paper we will show how kg is linked to time-speed. Actually, there are a number of ways to describe mass, and when they are used consistently, they each give the same result. However, modern physics still does not seem to understand what mass truly is. This paper is mainly aimed at readers who have already spent some time studying my mathematical atomism theory. Atomism seems to offer a key to understanding mass and energy at a deeper level than modern physics has attained to date. Modern physics is mostly a top-down theory, while atomism is a bottom-up theory. Atomism starts with the depth of reality and surprisingly this leads to predictions that fit what we can observe.
Comments: 17 Pages.
Unique-IP document downloads: 289 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.