Speed limit of the universe defined by E=mc squared [ alteratively,E=MC^2 ]

nOT suRE:

Not Sure wrote:


Some questions that I have:


Question 1:

The values in E=MC^2 appear to be locked in a numerical relationship.
If, for example, other units were selected, say from a different
mathematical measurement system that uses "base pi" for its values,
would the numerical values still be the same as in the equation?


Question two:

If E=MC^2,
and if 1/M=C^2/E,
would it be true that M/1=E/C^2 ?

Or by multiplying both sides by 1, that, M=E/C^2 ?

M is a measure of amount force resisted by something being accelerated,
and the distance over which that acceleration occurs.
E is a numerical measure of work produced on a mass object in a finite
amount of the dimensional motion of other entities.
C^2 is a concept of area, that even if it were to be C=1 , the amount of
mass equals the amount of energy.

These are numbers. and the symbols represent only selected properties of
matter or other existents.

Why does it seem that M=E ?

Or if 1/1 = M/E then 1=1.

What is happening there? And, have I violated some principles of
mathematics or failed to acknowledge the properties of active matter?


Question three:

If C^2 is a concept of area, would it be true that the size of the
active matter units would increase proportionately to the size of the
energy units for each square unit of energy. In, M=E/C^2 , from the
above statement, if the area of each energy unit is increased would not
the mass be decreased in simple proportion?

Now, is the smaller mass of every energy existent a function of its
increased area?


Question four:

Does that relationship create a condition where photon existents that
have higher areas also have smaller mass.? Does that create an illusion
of wave functions, that is measurable in energy level and frequency
terms, that seems plausible, however, that there may be a different
principle of operation concerning energy?

Is the area function of light more important regarding the energy of
entities than the velocity of the things?


Question five:

What physical property of existents is integral with, or that can be
measured by, the higher area of the thing?



Question six:

We all understand velocity and the translation of dimensional locations
expressed as a ratio to the dimensional motions of other things.

In what way may we consider the areas of things as integral properties
of the things?

Is the area of small existents a unique and unexplored property of the
existents?

Why, if the area is greater, the mass is smaller?



Ralph Hertle

..

Ralph Hertle schrieb:


Btw. what country are you from? I can't place your grammar, but if I had
to gues I'd guess Chinese.


callend an equation.


I've never seen a number system with a non-natural-number base. They
tend to be awfully inconvenient.


Does this mean

a) Is 10 base 2 the same as 10 base 10? No.
b) is an equation true no matter which base you use? Yes.
c) is this equation still true if you measure c in miles per hour? Yes,
but then E woult have the rather unusual unit of kilogram*mile²/hour².
When calculating things, you should use a consistent system of
measurement. In Science this usually is the SI-system, which uses
meters, kilograms, secons, and therefore Joule=1kg m²/s² as its unit of
energy. In Engineering you sometimes still use older systems like the
centimeter-gram-second (with energy measured in erg=1g*cm²/s²) or
inch-pound-second (which would use the BTU as a measure of energy, which
is not a measure of mechanical energy but one of thermal energy, so the
relation won't hold without further assumptrions).


You mean, can you divide an equation by a non-zero constant? Certainly.


yes, since F=m*a.


no.


This is just one part of E.


No. It's velocity squared.


Of course. In particle physics, you usually set c=1, so masses are
measured in electron volts.


No, Numbers multiplied by units. Without nentioning the units, the
numbers are meaningless.


Does this question mean "Why does it seam that the inertia of a moving
particle is influenced by its kinetic energy?" That's just the topic of
Einstein's 1905 paper. Quick and dirty answer is "time dilation"; since
the moving object appears to have a slower clock than the observer in
the lab, it reacts slower to an external force. This can also be
interpreted as an increase of mass. Expanding this time dilation (or
mass increase) for small velocities just gives the particle's kinetic
energy (\delta m=m/2 v²).
Or do you mean "Why do other kinds of energy also contribute to the
system's mass?" Just take as a Gedankenexperiment quickly moving
particles in a sack; even if there is no center-of-mass movement, the
relativistic mass increase of every particle in this sack is still there.


1 should be 1 dor reasonable definitions of "=".


No, it's fine.


which it is not, so skip the rest.


Well, the energy of a photon is inversely proportional to its wave
length, if that's what you mean.


Not an illusion. The wave function is there.


?parse error?


Entropy is linked to phase space volume, if that's what you mean.


No. We understand velocity as dx/dt.


by measuring it? I'm not sure what you mean by "things"? Electrons?
Bricks? Black holes?


It is not. The mass of a brick is independent of its surface, the
surface of a black hole increases with mass, and only the "size"
(de-Broglie wave length) of elementary particles at equal velocity is
inversely proportional to their mass.

Lars

Lars Kecke:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

You've no doubt recognized me to be a beginner in science.

Your level of knowledge appears to be quite high.

Thanks again for understanding the level of universalization /
particularization that is appropriate to what I wrote and, that you see,
to the facts of existence.

I'll have to spend some time with the text of your reply and I may have
questions.

Lars Kecke:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

You've no doubt recognized me to be a beginner in science.

Your level of knowledge appears to be quite high.

Thanks again for understanding the level of universalization /
particularization that is appropriate to what I wrote and, that you see,
to the facts of existence.

I'll have to spend some time with the text of your reply and I may have
questions.