[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)

[N0B0DY]

If g = ma, and e = mad, is it fair to say that gravity equals time and energy equals spacetime?

[mkirkpatrick]

Prehaps it is! However the reason that is so lies within the mind,the home of motion
arisings.



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY If g = ma, and e = mad, is it fair to say that gravity equals time and energy equals spacetime?

"As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."
- Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan (again):
“These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."

Indeed it has, and so it will continue, maintaining the same relatively uniform density, from one moment to the next, ad infinitum - yesterday's square mile is much smaller and more dense than today's, and today's is much smaller and more dense than tomorrow's; squared. All frames of reference remaining relatively equal; the infinitely small being no less endless and dense than the infinitely large is endlessly more thin and tenuous...
Electromagnetic gravity is relatively stronger - constituting (strong & weak) 'nuclear forces' - in the comparative earlier moments and relatively weaker in the comparative later moments of the continuous universal expansion. The value of time also changes, corresponding with the value of space it occurs in (re: 'time dilation')".

‘Extremely Difficult To Avoid Unstable Disturbed Areas In The Recent, Profoundly Disconcerting History Of Science, Which Have Yet To Receive Their Proper Interpretation.’
Continued:

How 'misled we can be into thinking that waves are physical realities.' Whereas, physical reality at large is ‘obviously not expanding.’ 'Clarifying' that all experimental proofs of the expansion of the physical universe at large - what is unanimously encountered and uniformly denied here - are merely 'mathematical phantoms.'
The 'profound disconcertion' being that there's something here that isn't being recognized, and we (formally recognized scientists) are afraid someone is going to run into it (provide the illusory ‘phantom’ with its so far unoffered and actively denied, long belated 'proper interpretation', and non-mathematically make it conceptually accessible to everyone), before we do. (Boo?).


Readers may draw their own conclusions, regarding the meaning and import of Buckminster Fuller's below quoted statement, regarding the geometrically considered 4th dimension (which is usually represented by a graphic illustration of a cube, or 'super-cube', and which in fact, as Fuller clarifies, may be represented by any shape whatsoever...).

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics.


"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...

"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics.


We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'"
- R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17

Apparently, what Fuller is qualifying, is that, although a geometric point does not exist, it is not square, it is round. Otherwise the motion of the square point A, to generate a Straight Line A --->B, begins a sequence of unnatural cubism, proceeding all the way up to the 4-D 'supercube'.

Fuller seems to be reminding us that the perpendicular - right angle - Euclidien law of (the extrapolation of) dimensions, can and does proceed from any shape at all; the three recognized dimensions of space being 4 dimensional and of a quasi infinite number of shapes and sizes.

The reader is encouraged to look up Buckminster Fuller in 'Who's Who'? The majority of entries have a few paragraphs of fine print - whereas Fuller's achievements fill the page. He is not a man to be underestimated.


George Gamow, in one mighty peculiar sentence, shows us what's wrong with Einstein's Cosmological contribution.
"Einstein's Cosmological Constant is unstable, and might *start expanding or contracting at the slightest provocation." - George Gamow, GRAVITY.
(Yes?) ((Well?)) (((Say When?)))


Dear George Gamow:
Please do let us know when and where it *stops.


( Here it comes again.)


The contemporary 4-Dimensional dilemma unmistakably resembles the pre-heliocentric era (before Copernicus - 1473 - 1543), where everyone and anyone could 'see' and therefore 'knew' that the entire cosmological universe - the entire heavenly celestial vault - revolved around the earth, east to west; every 24 hours (rather than the earth revolving on its own axis, west to east; creating the illusion that the universe is revolving around it).



The only distinction in this presently subjected case, being of course, that everyone and anyone can 'see' and therefore 'knows' that universal matter is not - certainly including people are not ('...obviously not'.) - expanding (4-Dimensional) field(s).


"In physics, particularly modern physics, the mathematical expression is apt to come first, its full implications only being understood afterward."
- Barbara Lovettt Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS


Patient: What have I got, Doc?
Dr. : Have you ever had this before?
Patient: Why, yes, I have.
Dr.: Well. You've got it again.

Rx: Wake up and smell the ammonium salts:

The Politics of Experience, continued

Such a 'disturbing dynamic' would indeed have a dramatically endless, prohibitively incredible tendency to 'expansively spread'.
The very thought is perilously perishable. Ostensibly, 'everything is not expanding.' The 4 dimensionally proven experimental results with its subjectively unprecedented - yet all along - conclusory object: is discarded the moment it is 3 dimensionally subjected.


An anonymous, nameless, faceless institution of scientific-moral arbitration. Where no one is responsible for anything. A perfect, corporate state inspired place to hide.

"The truth knocks at the door, and we open it, saying, 'Go away, I'm looking for the truth.' "
- Robert Pirsig, Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[RascalPuff]

Dear Nobody & Michael:
It seems the mathematical and comprehensive solution is already manifest.
("If g = ma, and e = mad, is it fair to say that gravity equals time and energy equals spacetime?" Indeed, Nobody, mathematics is not my forte, but, why not; as you say?)
The status quo perception seems to oscillate between denial and non-recognition of what is already known but continues to be rejected and/or unrecognized.

An example of the combination of both of these factors is proffered by P. D. Ouspensky, whose anticipation of the finding (recognition) of a 4th dimension is dramatically overstated...in his NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE.
Excerpts from an entire chapter entitled The 4th Dimension, follow.

Ouspensky sets an example of being so near and yet so far...
“It is difficult to describe even approximately the significance which the discovery of the 4th perpendicular in our Universe would have for our knowledge. The conquest of the air. Hearing and seeing at a distance establishing connections with other planets (May we start with establishing connections on this planet?) or with other solar systems; all of this is nothing compared with the discovery of a new dimension.”

Ouspensky continues:

“But so far it ('the discovery of a new dimension') has not been made ."

What We Must Do, continued:
“We must recognize that we are helpless before the riddle of the 4th dimension, and we must try to examine the problem within the limits accessible to us.” - P.D. Ouspensky, Chapter: THE 4TH DIMENSION, in the title: A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. p. 68

*With due respect, sir: How about a drop in the bucket?

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/help/introduction-physics-philosophy-metaphysics-space.htm

4-D accelerating expansion to macrocosmic infinity.

All the answers are there, looking up at the observer - ut infra, ut supra - not caring a ripple if the accelerating solutions therein are recognized or not...

The larger a given system becomes, the faster it expands, the larger it gets, ad infinitum. The same amount of energy distributed over an increasingly greater space, with no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass-energy.



For an even more detailed documentary of the remarkably employed Art Of Missing The 4-Dimensional Point, refer pages 69 thru 97 in P.D. Ouspensky’s A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. This is a very well written and illustrated book and chapter (The 4th Dimension), by a deservedly esteemed and dedicated author - well worth reading. Ouspensky exemplifies and dramatizes the standard refusal to recognize what is proven - over-ruling results of objective experiment and mathematics with subjective misunderstandings.

[N0B0DY]

“These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."

From what I can gather, putting the above quote with the quote below implies the interactions of the point masses are the result of the interference of all the spreading. I'm not so much rejecting the expansion, but recognize it as an illusory sense of all the wave functions with their collapse being equally illusory.

If within every dimensional framework there is both expansion and (contraction due to expansion), is there not a static state at each dimensionless point within the above frameworks that justify my inference that all frames and relative reference points are in "reality" a single point of absolute spacetime?

Putting all the F = ma, P = Fd/t, E = mv^2, etc. together, is G = mc^2 not equally as valid with respect to Newton as E = mc^2 is with respect to Einstein?

"Electromagnetic gravity is relatively stronger - constituting (strong & weak) 'nuclear forces' - in the comparative earlier moments and relatively weaker in the comparative later moments of the continuous universal expansion. The value of time also changes, corresponding with the value of space it occurs in (re: 'time dilation')."

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY “These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely." From what I can gather, putting the above quote with the quote below implies the interactions of the point masses are the result of the interference of all the spreading. I'm not so much rejecting the expansion, but recognize it as an illusory sense of all the wave functions with their collapse being equally illusory. If within every dimensional framework there is both expansion and (contraction due to expansion), is there not a static state at each dimensionless point within the above frameworks that justify my inference that all frames and relative reference points are in "reality" a single point of absolute spacetime? Putting all the F = ma, P = Fd/t, E = mv^2, etc. together, is G = mc^2 not equally as valid with respect to Newton as E = mc^2 is with respect to Einstein? "Electromagnetic gravity is relatively stronger - constituting (strong & weak) 'nuclear forces' - in the comparative earlier moments and relatively weaker in the comparative later moments of the continuous universal expansion. The value of time also changes, corresponding with the value of space it occurs in (re: 'time dilation')."

Dear Nobody:
Thank you for your response.
With regard to mathematics, I do very little beyond the most elementary algebra.

What I anthologically collect and deal with is an extended list of known but unrecognized reasons to acknowledge that there are 'standing fields', and, 'expanding fields', and that there are strong indications that matter - perceived as a 'standing field' - is actually an unrecognized expanding field.

From what I have gathered of some of your previous posts, you seem to be familiar with my work. I leave the mathematical conclusions to be drawn by people such as yourself, who are familiar with the non-mathematical contentions, and, who know how to use and apply mathematics.

Reasons for concluding that matter is an expanding field of energy constitute the motive and content of my work. Further considerations are left to the expertise of people such as yourself. The objective of posting my work is to see it disqualified or acknowledged. I request counsel in this unresolved subjection.

Please consider also, the directly related thread entitled "Are Lorentz Transformations exclusive to microcosmic phenomena?", that I have addressed to Neutralino.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

I wouldn't mind at all if we summed up all the maths as zero, RP, but I was trying to correlate the different interpretations of mass and space. I read your reference you just provided, btw.

If I could ask then if the gravitational force is proportionate to masses, and only applies to the masses or variable concentrations of the field, and gravity accounts for the expansion of massive bodies that are accelerating toward each other within a gravitational field, is it necessary for space (or field) to be expanding as well. It seems the only relevant expansion necessary would the massive expansion of localized systems.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I wouldn't mind at all if we summed up all the maths as zero, RP, but I was trying to correlate the different interpretations of mass and space. I read your reference you just provided, btw. If I could ask then if the gravitational force is proportionate to masses, and only applies to the masses or variable concentrations of the field, and gravity accounts for the expansion of massive bodies that are accelerating toward each other within a gravitational field, is it necessary for space (or field) to be expanding as well. It seems the only relevant expansion necessary would the massive expansion of localized systems.