**General Comments: Squaring Velocity ***c*
The theory of special relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the limit that mass-energy can travel, which 299,792,458.0 meters in one second (denoted as *c* in the science literature).
In consequence, according to that same thesis, it is impossible to square the speed of light in a vacuum and thus obtain a matter-energy event in spacetime/motion. Any multiple of the velocity of light cannot exist simply because it is held to be a limit. Therefore, the product of its square is an imaginary and non-existing number. This point renders the famous Einstein formula, E = m*c*^{2}, energy *equals* mass *times* *c*-square inoperative and thus irrelevant to spacetime/motion existence or to its analysis.
Intriguingly, relativists respond to this argument by stating that when they square *c*, they are not really squaring the *velocity of c*, but simply generating a big number, a mathematical factor, an indicator that may be used to convert mass into energy.
Firstly, this incomprehensible response by the relativists concedes my previous argument that it is impossible to square the velocity of light. Secondly, their response proposes an answer that has no logical meaning whatsoever. If the relativists want to establish a "big number" to convert mass to energy, then they could simply invent one. There is no need to rationalize it through the speed of light in a vacuum, and then turn around immediately and state that velocity is really not squared. Why square the term, *c*, which represents velocity, only to declare that velocity is not really squared in the formula.
Their response is baseless, but not without a purpose. Their "theoretical mumbo jumbo" attempts to maintain the idea of the conversion of mass to energy within the theory of relativity. In fact, it attempts to maintain the theory of relativity itself. They hope to save the theory of relativity at whatever price required; even if it requires denying logic.
This kind of contradictory reasoning reminds me of some of the higher math. There are formulas in physics where the same term will be placed twice in an equation, only to be canceled out. Why place the same term above and below the dividing line only to cancel them out? In my mind it makes no sense. Placing them there and then canceling them has nothing to do with reality. To square the speed of light and then state that its speed was not really squared shares that same kind of playful reasoning.
*Only one citation may be offered per example as there are too many to cite. If no citation is given, then it means that that particular idea or thesis is common knowledge and requires no reference. *
©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved. |