C Squared

And what do we see when looking at the stars? The constant is not an equation by the way and I am questioning the exactness of the math here that gives a number value of ~9x10E16m^2/S^2.

A possible definition for "c squared" is: The maximum limit for matter's existence before completely converting into energy.

Einstein's use of c^2 in his equation was to describe light (pure energy).
The understanding of this is: if no physical occurrence can go faster than the speed of light, then the collision between two bodies moving at the speed of light will produce the energy described in his equation.
This phenomenon is not necessarily produced by collisions. Lightning for example is probably achieved when the atom's electrons reach critical speeds.

In other words, if matter is almost entirely energy, then it is moving extremely fast.

This can be noticed by observing the planets:

The slowest and most elliptical orbiting planet is Pluto.
Its potential energy is high, its entropy is low. It covers the greatest distance of all the other planets.

The fastest orbiting planet is Mercury: Its orbit is circular. Its potential energy is low, and entropy is high. Each orbit covers the least distance of all the planets.

The Sun is the body in the solar system which has the very lowest potential energy, the highest entropy of them all.
The matter in the sun is almost completely energy. Its (matter) motion is the highest in the solar system.

I think these accelerations are produced by the difference in potential energy.
The potential energy at the center of a body tends towards zero.
The greater the mass, the more the difference in potential.

With this in mind, all accelerations can now be defined by the fact that matter loses energy: it moves from a high potential to a low potential area in space.

Does this define "c squared" for you?

Defining C^2 is not the issue that is primary here. If speedxspeed is the linking constant between mass and energy then C^2 is correct as it writen. If acceleration is the link C^2 is not correct. Either way the exact amount of the constant is unknown and that is the main problem. It may be a little less than ~9x10E17m^2/s^2 and no one would know. Therefore it makes no sense to use that exact constant in real measurements and then say an unseen particle accounts for what ever is missing from the mass and not observed as energy.

I agree with you. I think c^2 is not a constant but a variable, c^2 being the maximum limit.

Jim,

Your concerns about c^2 remind me of what started me thinking about UniKEF (another pushing gravity concept). I could not fathom m1 x m2 in Newtons gravity. Call m an apple and you have a square apple.

After years of developing the concept what I think I learned was that m^2 is an indirect measure for the unknown primary field strength combined with the unknown magnitude of absorbtion or attenuation of the field by a mass.

That is mass squared represents the dynamics of kenetic energy absorbtion or attenutation involved in pushing gravity (Not Tom's Pushing Gravity but mine).

Maybe we should be thinking along those lines and see what dynamic c^2 really represents.



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

Mac,

Gravity is a pushing force? Do you mean pushing towards the ground?
I think the term to be used is falling.I do not think a river needs to be pushed to flow downhill.