Random thOUgHTs - Nihaha Theory

Just after my PHL 301 class and some wild thinking, I came up with the crazy idea of Nihaha theory. Frankly it is total bullshit. It is advised that you should never take it seriously and should laugh at the passage with a big 'Nihaha' smile.

We discussed about the First cause of change in last class. It claimed that 'nothing could cause itself to change'. I immediately think of a counter-example of spontaneous emission of alpha/beta/gamma particles of radioactive substance. A student instantly challenges me that the emission is due to Brownian movement. I bet it is wrong - for as long as I remember, radioactivity is independent of temperature and everything else - it just depends on time. If it is not so, then there would be no radioactivity at all at the temperature of absolute zero, which particles would not be freely moving at all - which I don't believe is the case. So if the radioactivity is not caused by Brownian movement, what is the underlying cause of change?

Time. Energy. Mass. Else for you to name.

Let's talk about energy first. Suppose radioactivity is caused by the conversion of the potential inter-particle energy to kinetic energy which emits the particle. E=mc^2 might applies here. This might corresponds to the Big Bang theory and reinforce the idea of Cosmo-expansion as well as origin of life. It gets more sense when coupled with TIME. Here I would like to purpose that Time has a certain correlation with Energy.

Biologist always said that energy is lost through food chains, by respiration and incomplete digestion. While it is debatable that the heat could return to the atmosphere and be recycled to the system, I still hold the belief that energy does lost. Consider this example - a speeding Ferrari accidentally hits a pedestrian, who was thrown high up in the air, smashed to a street light, and his bone broken into tiny pieces. Poor guy. The energy of the collision is converted from the chemical energy of gasoline to kinetic energy of the automobile and then a huge sound 'Bang'. It is difficult to believe that the energy released by the cracking bone and then horrible big sound could be recycled. So energy is continuously losing all the time. But how can we live with a world of definite energy?! There must be some way to compensate the loss or else our would won’t be sustainable. Remember the TIME that I mentioned earlier? It could be that through the elapse of time, energy is replenished at a rate equal or greater than the consumption. My business background automatically prompts me into thinking that harnessing energy from time would earn me great fortune. Sounds great - but if energy is replenished at a rate equal to the consumption as I suggested before, TIME HAS TO BE STOPPED to obtain energy, which is practically impossible at the moment. Anyway. With that co-relation idea of time and energy in mind, if energy is released at a super fast rate then time is accelerated; if it is consumed at a super fast rate then time is traced back - fancy that. Don't think I am mad. So at the birth of a nova, a new star, tremendous energy is released. It purposed that time is accelerated. With that acceleration of time, evolution of organisms seems possible. That seems to reinforce the Big Bang theory that life is originated from a single mass initially. Now let’s incorporate mass into the consideration. As I said earlier, energy could be replenished at a rate quicker or equal to the rate of consumption (or loss). So where does energy in excess go to? It could well be converted to mass, like the dark matter in the universe as suggested by some physicist – which leads to the constant expansion of the universe.

Lets purpose a new equation of E=mc^2*1/T, where when T=1 then it is the normal rate of time, and T=2 is half the rate of time, and alike. Applying the equation, how to leap forward in time, that is, making T=1/2, for instance? A speed equals to root 2 times speed of light would be necessary. Applying the equation again, how to slow time, that is, making T=2? Is it using less half the speed? Sounds it does not make too much sense. Maybe changing the variables of E and M? Who knows. Then how to make T=0, which is , to stop time? An infinite energy would be needed. Now the idea to harness time for energy seems to be not feasible – you have to input infinite amount of energy to get infinite amount of energy. Yet another proof of no free lunch.

Enough about equations. If the universe is originated by a single mass of infinite density (possibly constitutes of dark matter) just like Big Bang suggested, which I assumed to be like a black hole capable to suck in any matter, light and even energy, and also coupled with the argument that a body consuming energy at a superior rate would be ‘having a slow time’, what would happen? Consider the equation again, speed is zero. Energy is zero. Time is infinitely slow (and T close to zero) but never stops (T not equal to zero). What if that mass attain just a little bit of speed? When T is close to zero, a finite number divided by T would be close to infinite. E could suddenly becomes almost infinite, and that release of energy would speed up time again. A state of equilibrium would be reached when T=1.

But how the hell does that single mass came from? Is it a single physical mass or a mass of considerable or infinite energy? Who created that? Does it exist all the time from the beginning? And here we come back to the first cause argument. Philosophy is so interesting in that after some serious thinking, you think you get some sense, and maybe some answer; yet quickly you would find that you has came all the way back to the starting point. Interesting. Though it would sometimes disappoint you.

These are just random wild thoughts, unorganized, inconsistent and illogical. Just bear with me. And now that you have spared the time to read this crazy stuff, it is time for you to:

NIHAHA~ NIHAHA~ NIHAHA~