The Lorentz Factor:
The problem with theoretical special relativity is its being tied to the observers and their reference frames. In fact, there can be no changes in the spacetime/motion event "observed", yet relativistic measurements abound for the observation. In that sense, even the concept of "rest mass" is questionable as it is defined as of the relationship to the observer.
This statement reflects one of the numerous statements regarding changes that bodies undergo in their internal structure according to special relativity theory when approaching the speed of light. However, what is the spacetime/motion reason for creating a huge number as in c-square, 8.987551787E16, then reduce the ratio of v-square divided by c-square, by subtracting it from unit 1.0, and then reduce it even further by finding its square root. One could also suggest employing a distinct procedure. For example, the question may be asked, why subtract unit 1.0? One could propose a subtraction based on units 2.0, 3.0…etc. There is no explanation of the material function of unit 1.0. 1 - 0.9999836 = 0.0000164 1 - 0.00000000009999836 = 0.999999999 One may also question why the use of c-square, and why not use c- cube [c³]? There is no apparent material need or explanation to propose c-square in the Lorentz Factor.One could obtain a ratio without using the squared terms. c = 299792.458 kms/sec 1/ 299792458 = 0.333564c-square = 299792458.0 meters/sec 1/8.987551787 = 0.111265 v/c ~ v-square/c-squareThere exists a theoretical need to explain why use c-square and not simply c. There exists a theoretical need to explain why use v-square/c-square and not v/c. Therefore, a) by subtracting it from unit 1.0; the ratio v-square/c-square is reduced numerically twice:and b) by finding its square root. One would need, then, to explain why the original ratio of v-square/c-square needs to be reduced by hundreds of times. What does that prove? Plus, one would have to explain how and why the original ratio is reduced differently for each different numerical value assigned to v.Is there some kind of material relationship that exists in spacetime/motion that determines the hundreds-times reduction need? I do not know of any. So, why reduce the v-square/c-square ratio differently for each gradation variation of v, as though spacetime/motion actually obeyed this reduction? The v/c relationship is raised to high numbers as in v-square/c-square only to be ridiculously reduced to lower math values [subtracted from unit 1.0 and use of the square root].ridiculouslyThere is in fact a third reduction that is contradictory from the start. Ratio: v/c = 299,792,450.0/299792458.0 = 0.999999973Reduction of ratio:v² / c² = 299792450.0 / 8.987551787E16 = 0.999999946Reduction subtraction from unit 1.0:1 - 0.999999946 = 0.000000053Reduction by square root:√0.000000053 = 0.000230217Finally, 0.999999946 / 0.000230217 = 4343.72764 final value of Lorentz Factor is 4343.7 times smaller than original v² / c² ratio. Consider, accordingly: If original ratio percentage: m0 = 1 = 1 / 0.999999946 = 1.000000054 = mass in motion If reduced ratio percentage: m0 = 1 = 1 / 0.000230217 = 4343.727874 = mass in motion The Lorentz Factor, in this case causes the term mass in motion [mο] to be 4343.727264 times greater than the original ratio.Einstein once commented that when the mathematicians took over the theory of relativity, he no longer understood it. I have the impression that the Lorentz Factor is the result of physicists or the mathematicians as Einstein called them, fiddling with the numbers. It appears to be the result of fiddling with the formulas in order to produce the pre-conceived numbers. Regarding increases in mass in motion, time in motion and energy in motion, they fiddled with the numbers in order to produce large numbers, very large numbers. And, in the case of the pre-conceived idea of length contraction, they produced smaller numbers by simply using the reciprocals of the largest numbers. There appears to be no reason to raise a physical limit to the motion of matter-energy [c] by 299,792,458 times; nor to relate that then to v-square of the mass under consideration, and then subtract that ratio from unit 1.0. Only to then find the square root of that number, ---especially when square roots derive two possible fractal answers depending upon whether the terms are expressed in meters or kilometers., when square root procedures produce two possible distinct numerical answers.The Lorentz Factor gives the appearance that there is only one answer to the equation√299792.458 kilometers = 547.53305 √299792458 meters = 17314.51582 The Lorentz Factor, as with all root computations, generates at least two distinct answers, as shown by the data sets. For v = 0.9c, m = 2.294157338705618m _{ο}For v = 0.99c, m = 7.088812050083353m_{ο}For v = 0.999c, m = 22.366272042129374m _{ο}For v = 0.9999c, m = 70.71244595191452m_{ο}For v = 0.99999c, m = 223.60735676962474m _{ο}For v = 0.999999c, m = 707.1069579492319m_{ο}For v = 0.9999999c, m = 2236.0680339452942m _{ο}For v = 0.99999999c, m = 7071.067813726424m_{ο}For v = 0.999999999c, m = 22360.68009119951m_{ο}Obviously, all previous answers are numerically correct. The point is to understand how square roots produce two fractal number expressions; cube roots produce three possible fractal answers; and so on. The formula has a pre-determined range of increments and decrements designed into its algebraically expressed denominator: The Lorentz Factor first increases the velocity of the mass in motion and the photon mass by squaring their numerical values (by 299,792,458 times or fractals thereof). And, then, the Lorentz Factor decreases or reduces those incremental values by subtracting their ratio from unit 1.0 and then furthering reducing that numerical value by finding the corresponding square root. It is difficult for me to understand the logic behind defining incremental ranges from 1.0 to 299,792,458 times/multiples (for terms v and c). Then take their corresponding decrease them a few hundred times by subtracting the ratio from unit 1.0 and then finding its square root. Even less logical in my view is to observe how all of this will ultimately serve as a ratio values [v/c] only to divisor (increment/decrement) for rest mass or a multiplicand (decrement/increment) for mass in motion ---depending on the analytical perspective.The range is pre-determined by the lesser values expressed in the v-term from unit 1.0 through 9.9 (theoretically), just for the sake of example, not for exactness (specifically, from 1.0 - 299,792,458 kms/sec). When the lowest speed of the v-term is a small number [as in 1.0], then the result derived as of the entire the equation will be the highest moving mass [m]. The formula yields an obvious event that the lowest speed of mass gives highest numerical value for moving mass. And, heavy mass events have lowest subluminal speeds.When the highest speed of the v-term is a large number [as in 9.9], then the result derived as of the entire equation will be the lowest moving mass [m]. The formula yields an obvious event that the highest speed of mass gives lowest moving mass. Near massless photon has highest speed limit. Yet, in spite of this relationship designed into the equation, somehow the scientists find that these numbers, this numerical range, means that infinitely high mass is required to reach near light speed. The formula appears to be redundant, and in that it is self-consistent. The formula represents a redundant statement that highest speeds correspond to lowest moving mass. The less mass, the faster speeds possible in spacetime/motion. A light photon, near massless, represents the highest maximum speed attained by matter-energy; their statement, not mine. And, the lowest speeds of mass [at rest] correspond to the highest amounts of moving mass: the ore mass, the slower the speeds in spacetime. The cited formulas for special relativity, as they are often called, entail a pre-determined mathematical design and structured outcome in their possible computations.
Remember, the minus, the square root and the division procedures in the formula are also mandatory, fixed terms. You must subtract from unit one, you must divide factors, and you must derive square root. The symbolic formula demands these steps. But, since all matter-energy, all spacetime/motion are in constant flux, the concept of mass 0 is relational, as well as mass at rest, which is also in motion [as its internal structure]. ©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved. earthmatrix.com |