[AntonioLao]

if the time of relativity is equal to the time of quantum mechanics then the product of mass and the fundamental length is a constant; and for unit mass, the fundamental length is equal to the product of Planck's constant and speed of light or equivalently the difference of these constants.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

the invariance of fundamental acceleration and length is given by



c is the speed of light.

The invariance of acceleration in the above equation can only work for actual objects that travel at the specified velocity of c. The only thing that travels at c is the photon, whether in the form of EM or a gamma ray.

All matter travels at speeds less than c, and so for ordinary matter the equation becomes

a * r = v^2

How do you intend to use the equation?

the square of energy is given by

Before I would consider such an equation I would take the time to understand what the unit of E^2 pertains to. When you change the dimensions of a unit, it is no longer that unit, but some other unit.

For example, velocity is one unit, but velocity squared is not velocity at all. In fact, I show that velocity squared is actually the unit of temperature. So

m * v^2 = E

or mass times temperature is equal to energy.

The unit of v^2 works out to be a quantification of the distance between molecules based upon the velocity of their collisions and the total mass of each molecule. The more energy put into a substance, the higher the velocity of individual molecules and thus the greater the temperature becomes.

It follows that if the same quantity of energy is put into a cubic centimeter of lead and a cubic centimeter of aluminum, the aluminum will heat to a higher temperature than will the lead because it has less mass.

What is your suggestion for the unit of E^2 and how would you use it?

[AntonioLao]

the units of square energy is the same units as the relativistic energy equation given as



where p is momentum, m is mass.

the ideal gas law does relate energy to temperature if the universal gas constant is known.

another formula that relates energy inversely to temperature is the thermodynamic beta if Boltzmann's constant is known.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

the units of square energy is the same units as the relativistic energy equation given as



where p is momentum, m is mass.

It doesn't matter who writes the equation, the question is what does E^2 mean in the real world? Also, you're dealing with "rest mass" of the photon in this equation. How do you quantify rest mass separate from photon mass? What property of mass is there that it can change its value depending on who is looking at it?

I find working with the mass-energy paradigm to be meaningless. The primary angular momentum and Aether paradigm is fully quantifiable and pertains to real things in the Universe.

the ideal gas law does relate energy to temperature if the universal gas constant is known. another formula that relates energy inversely to temperature is the thermodynamic beta if Boltzmann's constant is known.

Yes, but neither of these equations represents temperature in dimensions. Temperature in the established system of physics is given a dimensionless unit. In my system, no empirically derived constants are necessary. The temperature is strictly a function of energy per mass.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by volantis

the question is what does E^2 mean in the real world?

it means that the sum of square of energy is finite and has a value of zero. Loosely, i'm borrowing idea from Hilbert's square-integrable theorem.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

it means that the sum of square of energy is finite and has a value of zero. Loosely, i'm borrowing idea from Hilbert's square-integrable theorem.

I have read the various concepts behind SRT, and found them wanting. To me, this is pure speculation as E^2 does not have a real world meaning. Further, there is no empirical evidence for rest mass as being something different from ordinary mass. The fact that rest mass is essentially the same thing as ordinary mass indicates that the concept was devised solely to deal with the contradictions in the theory.

I won't tell you, or anyone else, that they can't continue to work with this paradigm. However, I can find no rational basis for it, and find the primary angular momentum and Aether paradigm is able to fill my need for rationality. I choose simply to not deal with relativistic equations.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by volantis

The fact that rest mass is essentially the same thing as ordinary mass indicates that the concept was devised solely to deal with the contradictions in the theory.

what's your comments about the Principle of Equivalence? The equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

what's your comments about the Principle of Equivalence? The equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass.

My comment about inertial mass and gravitational mass is the same as my comments about resistance mass, magnetic flux mass, photon mass, and all other units that contain a dimension of mass. Mass is simply inertia, it is not matter, it is not energy, and it is not at rest or moving.

Understanding that inertia is a dimension, much like length and frequency, is a key to following the Aether Physics Model. Also important to understand the Aether Physics Model is that inertia also has a reciprocal manifestation, just as length has the reciprocal of wavenumber and frequency has the reciprocal of time. Reciprocal mass is inertia that oscillates between forward inertia and backward inertia (all inertia [action] has an opposite and equal inertia[action]). The mass associated with Gforce and the Aether has this reciprocal nature, which is why it appears to have a net zero mass when we try to measure it, yet can act on the masses of two objects to produce gravity.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by volantis

Mass is simply inertia

isn't this the same as Mach's principle? See it at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Principle.html

[volantis]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

isn't this the same as Mach's principle? See it at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Principle.html

No, it isn't the same as Mach's principle. Mach's principle is saying that inertia is in relation to other objects, notably stars. I think Mach must have confused momentum with inertia.

Inertia is merely a dimension. Inertia is to mass as length is to distance.

I agree, it is a difficult concept to grasp unless you can relate inertia to your own direct experience of mass. Extend an arm in front of you and hold it as still as you possibly can. While your hand is still, try to sense the inertia in it. Do this for about one minute. When you think you are not feeling any inertia, move your arm and hand suddenly to the side, still paying attention to the inertia. If you do this a few times, you'll start to get a feel for inertia.

Another useful exercise is to visualize the various units that have mass as one of the dimensions. For example, there is resistance, magnetic flux, momentum, force, energy, acceleration, magnetic field, and mass density. Contemplate exactly what each of those units mean. Each of the above named units contains inertia, but expressed in a different way.

Then think about inertia in your macro environment. The photons moving through space have inertia. The wind has inertia. Your chair has inertia. The computer monitor has inertia. Your hair has inertia. Sound has inertia. Smells have inertia.

Just as you exist in a room containing numerous objects of varying length, you also exist in a room containing objects of varying inertia.

Pretend for a moment that you are in the movie, The Matrix. You are Neo and you just exploded out of Agent Smith. Now instead of seeing computer code all around you, imagine your reality as being composed of just four dimensions; length, frequency, mass, and charge. That is exactly the nature of your reality.

The world you call reality is an endless variation of just four dimensions. Even the space-time in which your material world exists is made from the same stuff. All the colors, sounds, shapes, textures, materials, brightness, heaviness, and every other characteristic you imagine is nothing more than these four dimensions in various configurations.

Inertia is not a thing, it is a non-material characteristic. But this non-material characteristic is a building block of objects and their behavior. You can measure inertia, just as you can measure length. You can measure the length from your eyes to your monitor, but what is it that you are really measuring? If you move away from your monitor the length increases, but where is it? What is length? It is obviously very real, yet it is also non-material. Inertia behaves in the same way. It is measurable, but there is nothing there.

Mach's definition of inertia would be like saying distance depends on the stars. We don't need stars to measure distance. Likewise, we don't need the rest of the Universe to measure inertia.