From where is this quantity c^2 derived?

[Robert Duncan]

Sol Eisenberg and Tom Van Flandern are both quite correct in that we simply cannot square a speed. It makes no sense. Viv Pope is adamant that c is not a speed. I believe all three are quite correct.

I wish to thank the abovementioned people along with Tony Bermanseder and Dr. Milo Wolff for some insight into figuring out the solution to this problem.

Graduate students of QED know that a pattern of where electrons will and won't be found exists between each electron and another detecting electron at some other point in space and time.

The reason for this, as Dr. Milo Wolff discovered and mathematically proved, is that the electron resonates at a scalar resonance rate and this rate has to exactly match a certain finite multitude of electrons in its surroundings. Thus we have this pattern of voids and electrons.

QED scientists have a novel but cumbersome method for showing us this illusive pattern that exists between any two distant electrons where one is detecting and the other is being detected.

You can actually get an idea of this pattern with Young's experiment that shows you definite light and dark areas.

The interesting feature about this double slit method is this: if we only allow one quantum of light in at a time, they will in time build up the same exact pattern that multiple quanta give in a much shorter time.

So if space doesn't change and time remains the same then the pattern doesn't change and this is the foundation that "squaring the amplitude" in QED is built upon.

But now we have to understand why our eyes do not continually see this pattern all around us.

And it's because Viv Pope is right and c is not a velocity. It's what Dr. Milo Wolff discovered, the scalar frame rate that the electron---and you---are being built. It's sort of like a movie picture (cinema) frame rate.

Now if we consider the quark to have a frame rate the square of this then we can understand that all electrons have a scalar resonance rate harmonically linked to the quark resonance rate. But which of these many quark resonant peaks will a single electron pick?

It's the TIMING that will be different for different electrons. They must have the same in phase peak with a certain in phase quark peak. But there will be many quark peaks that any one electron can pick from.

This is why our eye cannot see this fringe pattern because our eye sees the complete rangeof various different quark peaked TIMED electrons. These different TIMED electrons are what wipe out this two slit pattern from our eyes.

It's the various quark scalar resonance frequency peaks or frame rate resonances giving us these different TIMED electrons that produce our space and time or spacetime.

That this spacetime produced is only for us and not for the entire universe is apparent when we see we must use different rules and math for each different frequency spin/orbit system as QED (study of electrons) uses different rules and math from QCD, the study of quarks.

Therefore what we see as space, time and motion are really only phase relationships between us and our surroundings.

And this is why we can't notice motion in the microcosm nor anything beyond the Hubble limit.

As Binary Stars bind with each other spin up - spin down with their closest sides going in the same direction, so do electrons in magnetism and sigma bonding. Click the Binary Star link. If you make the masses the same in the top boxes then this also becomes a video of a spin up - spin down electron on the closest orbital to the nucleus. You can even move the "e" box and vary the eccentricity as the surrounding electrons actually would do to the two closest electrons to the nucleus.

The magnetic polar bond is much stronger than side to side (spin up - Spin down) binding because not only the closest sides but now the entire two binding electrons themselves are spinning the same direction on the same spin axis.

Stars, electrons and quarks all spin bind in this manner.

They all repel in this manner too because they all have gyro inertial qualities that will twist them away from the attracting positions (as long as they are perfectly free).

This attractive binding force does not fall off with the square of the distance. The number of binding pairs is what falls off with the square of the distance.

While pairs of electrons spin bind to cause magnetism and sigma and pi chemical bonding, quarks spin bind with nearby quarks to cause gravity and with distant quarks in the surrounding stars to cause inertia.

We notice the electron scalar rate as c or 3 x 10^8 meters per second.

We notice the quark scalar rate as 9 x 10^16 meters per second or c2. This is consistent with what Yale University teaches its students that gravity acts almost instantly. This is closer to what Newton thought it did as to what Einstein thought it did. Van Flandern has shown us that gravity has no aberration yet light does proving Yale University to be right.

But as Wheeler and Feynman have taught us we can never measure this directly in our spacetime realm but we can and do notice it as an acceleration.

And now you know the reason for the principle of equivalence or why gravity can not be discerned from an acceleration. But more importantly now, you also know why E = mc^2


Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

[AntonioLao]

I always thought that [math]c^2=\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{r}[/math], where [math]\mathbf{a}[/math] is the fundamental acceleration and [math]\mathbf{r}[/math] is the fundamental metric of n-dimensional spacetime.

[volantis]

The quantity of c is a very specific velocity. The only things that can move at the speed of c are photons, hence it is called the "speed of light." What we should really be investigating is whether there is a unit equal to velocity squared, and if so, what is its meaning?

Just as velocity times mass is no longer velocity, but becomes the unit of momentum, velocity squared is no longer velocity, but becomes a different unit. The question is, what is this unit?

One clue is that the unit of v^2 is commonly referred to the Sievert, or unit of radiation. There are no dimensions of mass or charge involved in the Sievert, so it cannot specifically apply to electromagnetic radiation, but must apply to anything that radiates. Another clue is the perfect gas law which states that pressure divided by mass density is equal to temperature. From this law, we can determine that the unit of temperature should be expressed in units of velocity squared.

So it would appear that velocity squared is the unit of temperature. Energy is then equal to mass times temperature. And temperature itself is nothing more than the velocity of particles bouncing off surrounding particles in all directions. The greater the velocity of the particles, the greater the temperature of the total medium.

The quantity of c^2 is merely the fastest velocity a thing can move. Thus, the energy of a single photon (the only object capable of moving at the speed of light) represents absolute hottest temperature. The cosmic microwave backgroud radiation would then be due to the number of photons passing through space at any given time.

[theunify]

Are you using facts of illusion that please the establishment or that please the author?

[volantis]

This is a bit vague. Which facts, illusions, establishments, and authors are you referrring to?

[CyborGuy]

This article mentions and in fact highlights the term pattern in multiple expressions.

With a geometry based TOE... I would very interested in seeing how this pattern would play out in a geometric format.

Thank You

CyborGuy

[tedjay]

I'm an engineer so maybe I miss the point with my Newtonian approach, but it seems clear to me that c squared comes from the equation for kinetic energy.
E= 1/2 m v x v
But the kinetic energy of what? Enter square root of 2 x c for v and one lands up with E = mc2 ! So Einsteins equation represents the kinetic energy of something travelling at a superluminal velocity
This was actually the seed thought for the development of Zeron Theory You can see more in two recent posts in the Physics section of members articles

Tedjay

[gautam]

I think truth remains same irrespective of the fact that it has come from Newton or Einstein or you. The point is that we all have our blinkers always on.
I really dont see any difference between F= ma or E = mc2. In case of the speed of light ,which is the highest possible velocity with no further acceleration,you may call it speed or the velocity. It ( c2)denotes the acceleration.
There are not as many entities in this universe and not as many relations as we see among them.
In view of the MEST TOE, we discuss the same thing again and again in different ways.
If there is one theory then there has to be only one thing, the mest.
We will find the distances between an electon and the electron so far as we believe that the space is extenal to the matter.
regards
Gautam