Unit 1.0 for the Four Categories/Terms in the Formulas

            An implicit thesis behind the four formulas cited is that a unit-value for mass is the same as for mass, time, length and energy. Implicit then in the four formulas is that any number assigned to mass is the same number value assigned to time, or to length or to energy. Unit 1.0 for mass is equal to unit 1.0 for time and is equal to unit 1.0 for length and also equal to unit 1.0 for energy. If this were not the case, then the data sets derived for the four formulas on the on-line calculators would offer different values accordingly.

1.0 mass = 1.0 time = 1.0 length - 1.0 energy unit
according to the four formulas.

It appears to be a system of measurement where all four categories arbitrarily are simultaneously assigned unit 1.0 without explanation.
However, it is necessary to note that the categories of mass [kg], length [meter] and energy [GeV?] are expressed in the metric system. The category of time is in the English system, and not in metric time. The use of two distinct measuring systems denies any idea of an equivalency in the unit 1.0 for all four categories.
The Lorentz Factor employed as a denominator in each of the four special relativity formulas is an expression of motion [for spacetime].
The four categories then are expressed as mass, time, length and energy in motion [mο, tο, Lο, Eο]. It appears to be theoretically acceptable to state mass and length in motion.

"In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time and its reference point. Motion is typically described in terms of displacement, direction, velocity, acceleration, and time.[1] Motion is observed by attaching a frame of reference to a body and measuring its change in position relative to that frame."
- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28physics%29

However, with regard to time, the existence of direction and the idea of a timeline suggests duration, but not the concept of motion.  When comparative examples are given of clocks in motion and at rest, in fact, what is being discussed is mass/length [clocks] in motion. Clocks are mechanical/electronic/atomic types of mass/length; they are not some material form of abstracted time. Time has no tangible category as such, other than the abstracted ideas of the timeline and duration.  
With regard to the expression energy in motion, as the formula portrays, motion [v, velocity] is already expressed in its term [E, mv] together with mass.

Space cannot be explained outside of time/motion.
Time cannot be explained outside of space/motion.
Motion cannot be explained outside of spacetime.

To state the obvious in a positive manner: space can only be explained in relation to time/motion; time can only be explained in relation to space/motion; and motion can only be explained in relation to spacetime.
In summary, spacetime can only be explained in relation to motion, and motion can only be explained in relation to spacetime.
            Given that all of spacetime/motion as we know it is in motion, then the theoretical concepts employed in the theory of special relativity are deficient.

"Rest mass = the mass of a body when it is not moving relative to an observer".
Source: http://keisan.casio.com/has10/SpecExec.cgi?id=system/2006/1224060366

            Mass at rest and mass in motion are relational concepts to spacetime/motion. This means that since all spacetime/motion events are in constant motion, even the apparent mass at rest is itself in motion on different levels and the idea of being in a state of rest is purely theoretical and relational to all other spacetime/motion events.
            Mass at rest is in motion; in relation to spacetime/motion; in relation to all other spacetime/motion events.
            One may modify the category by stating mass at relational rest, for example when supposedly all internal action ceases for a particular mass, as when supposedly the mass reaches a temperature of absolute zero. But, even then that particular mass remains in motion, in relation to all other spacetime/motion.
            Consider any material object sitting on your desk. It represents mass at rest, in relation to the desk, for example. But, its internal composition of matter-energy is in constant movement, as in becoming old just sitting there, and it is also in motion with regard to the Earth's axial spin, orbital revolution, the solar system in relation to the galactic spin, etc. 
The word-concept of relativistic mass [time, length, energy] must be assumed with caution and knowledge about all the different levels of motion of a particular mass. The mass is at relational rest for one reference frame, but in obvious/apparent motion regarding another frame of reference.
            The theoretical problem then relating to the four special relativity formulas given in the science literature is to know motion [of mass, time, length, energy] as of spacetime/motion and, to know if the Lorentz Factor means anything in terms of motion/spacetime. My view is that the Lorentz Factor misapprehends the existence of spacetime/motion by squaring the speed of light in vacuum. Further, the Lorentz Factor represents a baseless mathematical procedure as in the subtraction from unit 1.0 and the use of the square root.
            There is another assignment of unit 1.0 in the four equations. When v is divided by c in the Lorentz Factor, then c becomes unit 1.0 and the resulting percentage [ratio] of that division becomes the percentage of v of c. Other than that, it is difficult to understand what this ratio means in terms of spacetime/motion events as such.
When v and c are squared in the Lorentz factor, then any possible meaning is denied as the squared results of the numerical values of v and c are immaterial to spacetime/motion events. In other words, c-square divided by c-square simply does not exist.
v/c means that v is a percentage of c [a physical limit of spacetime/motion]
v-square/c-square means what?
1 - v-square/c-square means remainder math value means what?
√1- v-square/c-square presents two possible numerical values for the square
           root of the derived remainder math value which mean what?
v/c is one assigned reference frame where c is unit 1.0
v-square/c-square is one assigned reference frame where c-square is unit 1.0,
           but without any spacetime/motion basis in reality
           Each of the four special relativity formulas presents a distinct category [mass, time, length, energy].  Each one is correspondingly presented as unit 1.0, whereby all of the data are presented as 1.0 and multiples thereof, expressed in percentages below unit 1.0 either as a number or a reciprocal of that number.
            The terms v and c represent material existence. The categories m, t, L, E also have material existence. The relationships of these six categories [v, c, m, t, L, E] as expressed mathematically and algebraically in the four special relativity formulas together with the Lorentz Factor have no material existence in terms of spacetime/motion.
            In other words, do the mathematical and algebraic expressions that reflect these mathematical and algebraic expressions, such as,
           v-square, c-square, percentage of v-square divided by c-square, and the
           percentage of v-square divided by c-square subtracted from 1.0, together with the            square root of and the percentage of v-square divided by c-square subtracted from 1.0
have material existence in that it is possible to find matter-energy events in spacetime/motion?
            Ultimately, do the computational steps specified in the four special relativity formulas represent matter-energy events that exist or are they invented categories and with meaningless assigned numerical values?
            It is incongruent in my view that different aspects of spacetime/motion have the same motion formula [the four special relativity formulas with the Lorentz Factor], which is baseless to begin with as stated in its terms. Further, if it is possible to compute length, then it is possible to compute width [length] and height [length]. Yet, the special relativity formula as stated apparently refers to length and not to width and height of the mass referenced in the formula. And, if it does refer to the length-width and length-height of the same mass involved in the formula [length-length] this is not made clear in the presentation of the special relativity formula for length contraction.
            It is impossible to consider that mass and length present mass-increase and length-contraction [decrease] and yet width and height remain the same or as unknowns. Necessarily one must know the three lengths [dimensions] given for a mass, whatever shape the mass may have, even if it be a sphere.
            If the entire mass is contracting on all three dimensions as it reaches the speed of light, this is not made clear in the category of length-contraction, which appears to treat only one aspect of the three possible dimensions of a given mass [length, width, height].
            Further, in order to consider length contraction [be it of a single dimension -length- or of three dimensions -length, width, height] this category must necessarily be made explicit with regard to density of the mass involved. This is especially demanded as one is called to consider mass increase and length contraction, which necessarily involves the concept/aspect of density of a body in spacetime/motion.
            Further, it would be necessary to explain the theoretical idea of length contraction with regard to the numerous examples of lengthening of airplanes, for example, in flight nearing the speed of light, even though these be theoretical examples.

X-15, the fastest manned airplane on Earth: 7273 km/hr = 4519 mph

            The number of contradictions within the four special relativity formulas and their application and comparison to popular ideas with the theory of general and special relativity are far too many to treat in this brief essay.
            The fact that mechanical/electronic/atomic clocks are perceived to move faster/slower does not mean that said perceptions reflect the nature of spacetime/motion as such. Rather such perceptions reflect the nature of the clock's mass as an event of spacetime/motion. For clocks reflect the mass of the matter-energy that compose them. The possible fact that the internal mechanisms, be it mechanical, electronic, or atomic, present changes in the speed/motion of the indication of time cannot be employed as an example of time itself changing. The clock runs faster and/or slower according to the perception, but time itself has not been explained nor modified.
As mentioned, given the fact that spacetime/motion means constant motion, the very concept of a body, a mass being "at rest" becomes suspect.
            This becomes clear with the word-concept of "time at rest". The word-concept "at rest" means without motion. But, time is never at rest so to speak, it never stops existing, just as spacetime/motion never ceases to exist as such. One may say this another way: time never stops moving.
v      = velocity of mass
c      = velocity of light photon in vacuum

©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.