That question, I may never be able to answer, but the Theory of Everything has not proven to be a big problem. Albert had his relativity. Others have pondered their Everythings, and if you listen long enough, most people have a Relative with a Theory. Ahem.
E = mc2
Isn't that nice? There it is, all succinct and pretty. Albert Einstein just used a few symbols, right? How very tidy, this Theory of Relativity. It almost makes me want to break every piece of chalk and toss them over my shoulder, but not quite.
The boy was stuffy! There, I said it.
The equation means:
Energy= Mass x the speed of light squared.
You'll be dealing with some fairly large sums in that last number alone, then multiply it by the Mass of whatever, and that will equal the amount of energy in the object.
So you want to know how much Energy is in your golf ball? The mass of a golf ball = the weight of a golf ball. Mass=Weight (As long as you're on Earth, so that the gravity remains the same, but that's not important at the moment. I mean, where are you in particular planning to play golf? Neptune? No.)
To simplify, the Mass/weight of a golf ball is roughly 45.9 grams, so
E=45.9 x C2....
Pretty easy so far! Now, what is "C?" C is a symbol for the Speed of Light, and the Speed of Light is a simple number of meters per second, and light trucks along at 299,792,458 meters per second (m/s). That number is squared, which means it is multiplied by itself. 299,792, 458 x 299,792, 458= 8.993547636528176 and 16 more digits until it's resolved. Let's simplify that to 8.99, because frankly, I 'm tired. Now let's plug that in to our damned equation.
E=45.9 x 8.99
Nice! All we have to do is multiply those last two numbers to figure out approximately how much energy is in a golf ball, because we freaking NEED to know that! Ready?
E= 412.641 (roughly)
Yay! Einstein! There's still the hair problem, but can't you just feel the improvement in your life surging through your veins?
No?
Me neither.
I love Albert, O.k. mostly for his hair, but really I love him. I just think he needed to calm down. He was so earthy. I mean he made this equation using not only Earth's gravity, but Earth's scientific language of numbers, and outside of the world is that going apply in the Pleiades?
Small minded, I'd say. I'm not sure what Relativity has to do with Everything, or if it should be included as a step along the way, but I find it lacking in awe-flavor as it stands alone. There comes a time, as much as I adore numbers, that they fall short of explaining to my sense of wonder.
I made an attempt to form a "Theory of Everything" myself a number of years ago, and I encourage you to form and reform your own theories as well. After all neither I nor Albert, nor anyone else with a hair problem can see through your eyes. Here's my go at it.
"Everything is as it is, unless it's not."
I liked it. It seemed to cover Everything, but upon close inspection, I find it longer than Einstein's theory. Couple that with the fact that I also have more obtuse hair, and I felt the need to be more concise. Attempting to remain as scientific as I care to, I seek to improve upon any assumption I might have about any thing. I'm in a state of learning, after all. I figured it would be safe enough to take the, "Unless it's Not" off the end, and that left me with a more elegant,
"Everything is as it is."
Nice but Albert's is still shorter! There is also the danger of it being categorized with the whiny, defeatist, "It is what it is" drone. I can't have that, so I took it a step further.
"Everything Is"
That's going to produce any number of statements like, "Unicorns do NOT exist." If you or anyone or anything thought it, it exists in the form of thought. If it's not been thought yet, the seed of thought now exists, because I just wrote it. I think it possible that Everything is currently existing in the form of thought, but that is for another discussion. Research, "Holographic Universe" if you must, or if it's to your liking, consult Ed.
"Reality is built out of thought, and our every thought begins to create reality." Edgar Cayce.
Back to the equation at hand. It's still not as pretty as Albert's equation, so I decided to drop one word.
"Everything"
I had it! By golly there it is, my Theory of Everything. Once I realized it was a redundancy of the word, "Everything" my heart sank. "My heart?" hmmm. I decided to try dropping the other word.
"Is"
The word means, "To Be," and vestiges of Shakespear's question crept in on me! Maybe the question all along wasn't what Everything was but what action does it take? It exists, "To Be" went through my mind again in various forms: It "Is," Those "Are," and I was reminded of a biblical, "I Am." Everything was in the act of Being, and it seemed to say, "Be." With that I had my Theory of Everything even shorter than Albert's.
"Be"
Maybe the numbers are good and right, and maybe the poets were. Then again maybe there is poetry in numbers, and it's all the same thing anyway. Everything wasn't an object outside of me to be named or calculated. It was Everything including me. In oneness, we Are. I Am...Simply Be.
With that the numbers and words faded into nothing but existence, being-ness, and how amazing that is, to simply...
"Be"
(Are my numbers wrong? Probably. Will it cease to Be? Nope. As simple as that, there was my, "Theory of Everything."...and there are those who insist I think too much. smiles.)
tina jones
beautifully put
ReplyDeleteThank you. smiles.
Delete