A Non-Relativistic Example

One question that came to mind when considering these word-concepts and their apparent contradictions in the cited formula concern that of a runner and a swimmer on Earth. Would you divide the speed of a field-and-track runner to that of a swimmer on Earth? The faster track runner appears to be around 27.7 miles per hour, and the fastest swimming speed appears to be 2.1 mph.

Fastest human runner to date: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds

            By dividing 27.7 by 2.1, one can state theoretically that a runner runs 13.1905 times faster than a swimmer. Or, inversely, a swimmer travels 0.071916 as fast as a runner. Beyond that ratio, there is not much to be said theoretically to subtract the ratio in this case means something is beyond my concept of self-consistency. If the numerical result from squares, 0.928084 has no meaning, then its square root, 0.304644711, has even less than nil meaning.
           To square these values and state that 753.44 [27.7 squared] divided into 4.41 [2.1 squared] yields 170.8480 tells me nothing, as far as I am able to discern from this procedure. To propose that a swimmer at 2.1-squared mph may turn into a runner at 27.7-squared mph is simply ludicrous thinking.
           Why is it that at different levels of matter-energy events, spacetime/motion coordinates for say astronomical events the capacity for theoretical reasoning appears to vanish. In the cited Einstein formula for relativity, one is not simply proposing the division of the speed of one event by that of another. But, in fact, one is proposing the square of these speeds, their proportional relationship being subtracted from unit 1.0, and then that numerical result having its square root component derived and then divided into a moving mass. Phew, it is even tiring to attempt to think about such a mathematical procedure in terms of spacetime/motion events.
           I would suggest that it cannot be done, materially executed anyway.
           Relativists disregard an example such as the runner/swimmer one by the tautological statement that relativity theory applies to other levels of spacetime/motion, and not to the mundane. That rebuttal is a direct acceptance that they visualize a relationship between mass and velocity at the relativistic level, while denying such a relationship at the level of the runner/swimmer. They propose that matter-energy behaves in different ways from the mundane at the level of relativity.
           No doubt, scientists do derive numerical values from the cited formula. Numbers can be derived from the interplay of the algebraic symbols [m, v, c, Ö, /, unit-one, etc.]. But, the question remains whether all those computational steps actually exist in matter-energy, in spacetime/motion coordinate events.
           Essentially, the conclusion of the cited formula is that it is impossible to attain the speed of light for any mass at rest due to the infinite amount of mass required to reach the mathematical number derived from the formula's a priori design. More than the formula being self-consistent, its design proposes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The mathematical answer is designed in the pre-selected terms of the formula/equation.
           For the sake of analogy, imagine the following computation.

swimmer mass in motion

Forget about running these values through the different procedures of subtracting from unit 1.0 or finding the square root of these terms.
           In my mind, spacetime/motion existence is consistent with its own conditions of existence at all levels and forms of matter-energy in spacetime/motion. The so-called laws of physics that exist at one level of spacetime/motion are the same laws that exist at all levels of spacetime/motion. If there existed different laws for different levels of spacetime/motion, different kinds of spacetime/motion coordinates, then existence itself would be inconsistent, unrelational. It would be impossible to relate one set of spacetime/motion laws (coordinates) to another supposed set of spacetime/motion laws (coordinates).
           Spacetime/motion is related at all levels of spacetime/motion because all matter-energy is spacetime/motion.
           It is deficient to attempt the previous explanations employing the currently popular word-concepts used by scientists, such as the idea of a 'law', but the proposed wording in the previous paragraph is to attempt just such an understanding in their own terms. I have stated this idea in terms of spacetime/motion existence elsewhere, but for now I have made the attempt to use the popular word-concepts in this essay.
           In other words, we ourselves are made up of protons|neutrons|electrons|quarks|leptons|etc., so anything perceived or classified as "exotic" at the sub-particle level of matter-energy in fact lies within our bodies, in every form of matter-energy around us. There is no level of behavior for one level of spacetime/motion and a distinct level of behavior of spacetime/motion for another level. What occurs "out there in Space" is occurring right here all around us, at the particle|sub-particle level, at all levels of spacetime/motion. For all levels of matter-energy are composed of particles|sub-particles, be the event a single sub/particle or infinitely so numerous.
           While scientists have been feverishly thinking about uniting different theoretical bodies of human thought, reality exists united, so to speak, on all levels of matter-energy events in spacetime/motion. There is no problem of uniting in practice in matter-energy what has been identified as a theoretical problem for human beings in uniting their thoughts [knowledge] about the spacetime/motion existence of all matter-energy.
           Scientists strive to unite their theoretical ideas [meandering] about all levels of matter-energy of spacetime/motion, while these in reality already exist as such. We just do not know yet how to think reality as it exists.
           As of the previous analysis, it becomes obvious that the cited formula entails certain quantities of mass events. For example, it is unacceptable to think of the following example, where the v-term would represent the light photon ( c ). The following example is not a possibility by design:

light photon

photon = photonο understood to mean that a photon's mass equals a photon at c-speed. The algebraic/mathematical design of the symbolic formula pre-determines its own limit as of c. This particular computation of a 1:1 ratio [denominator 1.0] illustrates the illogical step of squaring the c-term, as it cancels out immediately; hence, it never exists.
           A commonly held statement is that when a light photon approaches the speed of light [its own maximum speed], it supposedly increases in mass. I would suppose on an everyday basis, that even an automobile when it increases its speed also increases in mass ---were it possible to weigh its perceived difference in mass at rest and mass in motion. One knows that a moving automobile has an increased force against other mass events. Anyone who says anything to the contrary is wrong because the mass of a moving automobile on the streets of any city cannot be measured in comparison to its rest mass. Remember all trucks have to completely stop at the interstate weigh-stations to have their mass weighed.
           The final question: is this example really non-relativistic? According to the theory, relativity occurs everywhere. It is only noticeable at certain levels of reality.

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