Scientists in general, and physicists in particular, appear to be infatuated by the concept of powers in mathematical expressions. This appears obvious in Einstein's two famous formula regarding Energy and mass in motion. The theoretical concept of mathematical powers of numbers is misleading however in theoretical discourse as shown in this essay and in other essays about Einstein's computations. And, as seen above, it appears in the Lorentz Factor. The same fractal numerical values are derived from the algebraic presentation as of the previous one containing the squares of the v and c terms.In my view, it is impossible to materially reason the spacetime/motion coordinates of the matter-energy events portrayed in the denominator
of the previous equation expression. In other words, it is impossible to have the procedural steps of the equation derived as of existing matter-energy events in spacetime/motion Here is a stated attempt in word-concepts: "The square root of unit one [1.0] minus the velocity of a mass at rest divided by the reciprocal of the same mass at rest divided by lightspeed in vacuum divided by the reciprocal of lightspeed in vacuum". What has been stated here in terms of matter-energy events in spacetime/motion? Personally, I have no idea. From this expression without squares, one will obtain the same fractal values derived from the original Einstein formula employing squares. However, the terms as stated in this version without squares make more sense in terms of matter-energy events, but still make no sense at all. In my view, there exists no matter-energy event that derives from the simplified c-expression of the Lorentz Factor denominator. as expressed without squares in the terms.
with squares of the terms. [Remember that the Planck constants employ powers of c to the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th powers; even more unreal numbers.] by definition.In order to impose a consistent set of logical statements in the algebraic notation of Einstein's two commonly cited formulas, one would need to write one as follows. m = E / c² in congruence with, times or, inversely, mο = m E = mc² and, mο = m ( )The problem remains, in spite of correcting the logic in presentation of the two formulas in order to improve their consistency in reasoning, both of the formulas are based on immaterial events such as c-square, among other precepts. From the previous analysis, it is interesting to note that two different definitions for mass at rest are being presented: mass at rest = divided byE c² and, mass at rest = times m In other words, it follows that: divided byE times c² = m In my view, these two expressions make no sense, nor derive an equivalency between themselves as expressed in terms squared, or as in terms without squares. timesE / (c times c) = m The special-relativity formula as stated in Albert Einstein's own hand-writing as cited earlier is: This equation appears to entail elements of both of Einstein's now famous formulae. Its expression without squares would be then: It is significant to note that today two distinct formulae are offered for relativistic energy, elements and terms of which are purported to be in Einstein's own hand-written formula: E = mc²and, If the relativists use reciprocals for length contraction, then why not use [c/ (1/c)] instead of squares of v and c. They will say that this makes no sense, but they use reciprocals anyway. ©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved. earthmatrix.com |