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

..