C Squared

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />The problem is E=mc2 is equal to F=ma when an exact value is stated for acceleration of ~a=9x10E16 m/s2. The only difference is F=ma has units in newtons and E=mc2 has joules as units. The newton is a joule/meter. The form of the two laws is such that I think F=ma is a better statement of real transactions that occur in real events. It needs to be clearified so that a better description of photon behavior can be developed. I see E=mc2 as too rigid and not accurate. Where as F=ma is quite the opposite


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hello Jim,
I don't see your point. You can set the speed of light for 1 nanosecond or anything you wish as long as the actual measurements are correct to the base of miles, feet and so on per your nanosecond or our already set in stone as you put it 1 second. It will not effect the equation E=MC^2 at all as long as your measurments are correct. There is an important aspect however that most do not know about. There is " the speed of light" that you are talking about here and there is a thing I call " the distance of the speed of light". As long as you observe your target and it is not moving from your fixed (present B sub 0) time frame they are the same. If however you observe the target moving from your B sub 0 frame the moving target becomes a new time frame B sub 1 and is an altered dilated state. Then " the distance of the speed of light " becomes a variable while your " speed of light" from B sub 0 remains a constant. See link to my paper below.

webpages.charter.net/pubmaster/PSRPub.PDF

Enjoy,
Spacedust

The only option if man is going to reach the Stars in a lifetime is to master both Space and Time. Warp Technology today!

Hi Spacedust, My point is that E=mc^2 is not an accurate statement at all. The current use of this statement is absolute and everything is science is based on this statement being absolute truth. This is why the vertual and real details cannot be isolated from each other in QM and why nuclear physics is so strange. E=mc^2 is a very good approximation but as it is now used as an absolute fact it gives a muddled picture of real events. F=ma can be used in a way to reveal much more than E=mc^2.

[Jim] "F=ma can be used in a way to reveal much more than E=mc^2."

Sooner or later, an example would be appropriate.

LB, Am I supposed to set an example here? The pressure is more than I can take-do you have any examples?

LB, How about the details within a particle accelerator? The action peaks when the particles are stopped in a rapid acceleration. So, I ask you is that an example where f=ma might by of use? What do you get out of E=mc^2 when two particles meet?

I do agree that massxlightspeed^2 gives a muddled pic of real events because of the insane c^2 entity which's why Powerxtime gives a much better view of energy due to the fact everyone can basically relate to what power and time are. Even though I've defined that c^2 is moving so fast it's the propagation rate of one second, who can really visualize or decode what c^2 is on their own?

Although I do believe that if we've measured the speed of light correctly that E=mc^2 when E/md=2.998x10^8d/t^2. Yet this is merely the energy for lightspeed itself. If I were to use the gravelocity then the energy would shift and be equal to a much greater level of joules dependent upon the mass of the object in question.

(The way I determine the arbitrary letter for gravelocity and chargevelocity are since c~~&gt;h then G~~&gt;l thus K~~&gt;p because I'm just counting 5 spaces ahead so actually since G comes before h I'm using h as a starting point to determine l which comes after K so I'm using l as a starting point to derive p.)

Hence in terms of E=mc^2 the energy of the sun is 1.788x10^47 Joules but in terms of gravelocity E=ml^2 (mx1.128x10^29d^2/t^2) the energy of the sun is 2.244x10^59 Joules and in terms of chargevelo E=mp^2 (mx2.476x10^71d^2/t^2) the energy of the sun is &gt; ^100 Joules.

In this light it's actually the lightspeed which provides the lowered energy analysis of creation. Howev to further decode mc^2 the mass would in essence be multiplied by a linear velocity and a nonlinear velocity or in simpler terms the mass is multiplied by a real velo and an imaginary velo. The real velo is the straight forward flat world approach but the imaginary velo is like a 'backward spun curved world' approach. One velo is local and the other velo is non-local that in terms of mv^2 the local velo would be yourself and the non-local velo would be the earth. Although the spin of the world is real, it's only real in our imaginations because we can't actually subjectively feel or see it happening unless you do all that Zen stuff or hop on a space ship and watch it objectively.

So perhaps in the particle accelerator when two particles meet I suppose they'd become E^2=m^2c^4 for a moment before the mutual annihilation occured.

In terms of relative light speed behavior Fd=mc^2 is distance coupling energy and in terms of quantum light behavior Pt=hf is time cancelling energy thus we have coupling and cancelling energies again that only serves to uphold the existence of gravinuclear electromagnetism, (/=x and -=+).