[RascalPuff]

"In the formula 'E=MC2', why is C (light; field energy) squared (Out of M < Mass/Matter/ Particle>; which is perceived as a static, non-expanding, non-field)?"

In school, I may have asked the question myself, but I knew less of mathematics than I do now. But others did ask that question, and that is understandable enough. The *teacher's (*ubiquitous) answer, which I have also learned since then is familiar to many others, was not so understandable. That (alleged) 'answer' being:
'It (C squared) actually isn't necessary'.

This answer, it will not surprise some of you to know, is quite standardized as a response to the question, 'Why is C squared, in the formula E=MC2?'

I had no understanding of mathematics whatsoever, and yet it still left me and many others wondering:
'If in fact it isn't necessary, then why did Einstein include it in the formula?'
One may again reasonably ask, 'What is the speed of light squared from?' Of course the only answer is, 'The speed of light (C - celeritas constant) is squared from (out of) Matter'.

Smoke On The Perrier:
Affixed to that familiar explicit statement made by Einstein, is the familiar implicit statement - 'but it isn't necessary'.
Light energy is acknowledged to be, to say the least, expanding. Specifically, it is very accurately measured, originally in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, to do so at 186,282 miles-per-second.

*Light energy is also acknowledged to be qualitatively identical to *Matter energy; *their differences being only their densities. Light being much more thinly distributed and tenuous than matter. This is proven in the statement 'E=M' of the formula 'E=MC2. Originally published by Einstein in 1906. Light energy or electromagnetism is furthermore acknowledged to invariably originate within and expand-out-of *MatterEnergy - *generator of all spaces and times.

On the other hand, MatterEnergy is not acknowledged to be expanding.
Quite the contrary. Matter is unanimously agreed to be static and non-expanding.

Digressing To Reality, Geometric & Algebraic Law:
In the formula E=MC2 we have the acknowledged dynamical omni-directional expansion of electromagnetic or light energy, squared from presumably static/non-expanding MatterEnergy.

As long as there are those who demand and deny proof of the constant expansion of physical matter, there will also be those who fail or refuse to recognize the accumulative achievements of historical and contemporary Academic Physical Science - and, the lessons of Algebra 101.

If all the Nobel laureates in the world gather together to agree that any entity acknowledged and agreed to be dynamically expanding, can be algebraically squared from any other entity which is agreed to be static and non-expanding (exactly such a gathering exists, and has existed since 1906):
what is established in such an assemblage of authority is that, none among these mortar-boarded multitudes has possession of the mathematical ability required to pass the seventh grade.

Einstein's 'renowned formula' E=MC2 proves again that Universal Matter is literally, constantly and dramatically expanding.

Clipping right along on this planet at 32 feet per second squared. The Causative Source of the 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum: a dimension of time, and motion (are synonymous - time being the interval between two or more events <in space>).

The same quantity of energy, distributed over an increasing volume of space, squared.

Any question of why matter and energy expand, is tantamount to asking ‘Where did matter and energy originate?’... The answer being that they’ve always been, and it is their inherent nature to expand. It is much more challenging to find something that isn’t linearly and/or omnidirectionally moving, than it is to observe that which is.
Moreover, and recently, we are learning that observed expansion is accelerating...
(Refer, 'Gravity is acceleration'. - Einstein)

Best regards,
- RP
__________________________________________________ __

Addendum:
“A defect (of Newtonian Classical Mechanics) also eliminated (resolved) only by the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by the mechanics itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point.” - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS.

Newton was fully aware of the unexplained, hauntingly unresolved problem: the functional intersection of inert and heavy mass values. Describing this coincidence too often passes as explanation for this coincidence; which falsely currencied description is no explanation at all.

According to Aristotelian intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster.
They don't.

Instead: Everything in free fall on or near earth invariably descends at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum. Sans air resistance).
Einstein's General Principle:
is the only recognizable explanation for this.


Pursuing The Irresolutely Descending Cul De Sac:
At the turn of the 19th century, a Russian scientist, Roland Von Eotvos, pursued finding a difference in descent rates of heavier and lighter objects. A difference which is supposed to be there, and isn't.

Eotvos, was inspired to achieve technological measurement of differences in descent time for variously light and heavy falling objects, down to a billionth of a second (A nanosecond).

He could find no variants in rates of descent (in time) for variously massed test objects (in space)..
No difference in descent rates - gravitational time from inertial space; uniformly perceived as unrelated - of comparatively lighter and heavier objects has ever been measured (far beyond a nanosecond); to date.
The author submits that no difference will ever be found. Due to the more-than-coincidence - but rather the identity - of the fact that apparently descending objects are not really falling at all. The ever-expanding earth, matter of factly rising up to 4 dimensionally overtake and meet - make contact with - apparently falling bodies/objects.

(Upon occasions of free falling objects being overtaken and struck by, then to be inertially pinned down upon the earth's surface, present day science does not recognise the consequent gravitational fulfillment of the scientific definition for 'work'. This discussion will be presented in more detail, in Part VII of this ongoing dissertation <TOTAL FIELD THEORY>. May it suffice to clarify for the moment, that contemporary theoretical physics does not acknowledge and consequently does not employ the advantage of comprehending and accounting for a proper understanding of 'objects at rest', while constantly acted upon by gravity: the unidentified 'force' - F; on the earth's surface. That is, such objects are perceived and conceptualized as 'not moving'. Whereas, the scientific definition for 'work' requires motion, which, in the case of the ever-accelerating 4-D space-time continuum and the - en perpetuatem - prevailing dynamics of the General <and Special> Theory of Relativity, is not recognised or acknowledged.
Meanwhile 'force' is defined in several categories of motion, none of which are attributed to 'objects at rest' on the earth's surface <for example> in a gravitational field; all of which definitions are fulfilled. Not only in the inertial resistance to the acceleration of earth's suface upon the 'object at rest', but also and importantly, the - en perpetuatem - omnidirectional, accelerating enlargement of the - whatever - test object, itself... This unprecedented explanation is further subjected and clarified in Part VII, of the ongong TOTAL FIELD THEORY. Refer: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie)