Not Sure wrote:
Some questions that I have:
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?
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?
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
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?
What physical property of existents is integral with, or that can be
measured by, the higher area of the thing?
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
Why, if the area is greater, the mass is smaller?