and
The Speed of Light Squared
Most
analyses in physics employ one of three or four distinct values for
the constant of the speed of light:
299792458
m/s-1
(Distance)
2.99792458
cms/s-1
(Distance)
1/299792458
s (Time)
c2
(the speed of light times itself)
The
last constant, c-square, is hardly ever presented as its actual numerical
value, which is 8.987551787 x 1010, but, rather simply appears
as the symbol c2.
With
the decimal place as shown, especially in the scientific notation of
the second example given above, the first three values/constants given
as 2999792458, 2.99792458 and 1/299792458 suggest corresponding square
roots of these numbers based on the 1.731451582 fractal value, respectively,
17314.51582,1.731451582, and 1/17314.51582.
One
hardly ever finds in physics the actual 299792.458 kms/s constant, which
has the 547.5330657 square root value.
In
a sense, then, this explains and is explained by the fact that one hardly
ever, if ever, observes the analyses with the square root of light at
all. One only sees the treatment of the constant of light with the c2
symbol. And, even with the c-square symbol one hardly ever sees the
actual value of that symbol expressed as 8.987551787 x 1010.
Were
analyses in physics to have been based upon the square root of light,
instead of the symbolic (and non-existent) values of c-square (c2
or 8.987551787 fractal) then we would have been observing analyses like
the one being presented here. We would have already learned of
the two distinct square root values for the numerical expressions pertaining
to the speed of light: 1.731451582 fractal and 5.475330657, which would
be cited then in the textbooks and specialized studies of the constant
speed of light. Such a distinction has not been drawn as far as I have
been able to discern, and if it had then this analysis is only proven
by such a case. Further, in such analyses, we would have then learned
of the significance and importance of the square root of ten (3.162277660),
which mediates the two previously cited square numbers for the speed
of light values. At least, I have not encountered such studies as yet.
Consider:
5.475330657
x 3.162277660 = 1.731451583
In
this manner, we may observe that in spite of choosing either the two
distinct square root values, the values themselves are relational and
may be employed indiscriminately in the analyses, as long as all of
the necessary aspects are emphasized about their interrelated nature.
For, as we have shown throughout these extracts, all square root numbers
reflect two distinct roots depending upon the placement of the decimal
in their symbolic or natural structure.
Scientific
notation, with the placement of the decimal point placed after the first
integer/value shown (i.e., 2.99792458 fractal) thereby lacks any distinction
and generally ignores the root values of the numbers/constants cited.
Most constants are expressed, within the physical constants at least,
by way of their multiple exponents and not by their root numbers. The
square root number or any root number of a constant is a multiple thereof
and may be considered for the analyses.
For
some reason, physicists have chosen the very large numbers instead of
the ones that approach common denominators of the constant values. The
reasoning in this regard is absent in the literature. One of the main
questions that particle physics needs to answer, and which has gone
unexplained far too long is why would the square of the speed of light,
be chosen over the square root of the speed of light? In other words,
why would one avoid in the analysis, the square root of a number (299792.458)
that exists and employ instead the square of that number which does
not exist.
For
the square root of the speed of light represents a value below the speed
of light and therefore may possibly have existence. Whereas, the square
of the speed of light represents a value that exceeds the speed of light
and is recognized by the same scientists who employ that squared value
as not having any possibility of existing, for nothing travels faster
than the speed of light. On the one hand, then, scientists deny the
existence of anything traveling above the speed of light, yet those
same scientists for decades have employed without reservation the square
of the speed of light as thought it actually exists.
The
only other possibility that may exist, is that spacetime/motion, matter-energy,
may exceed the speed of light. In other words, the squaring of the speed
of light works for analyses in particle physics because the speed of
light is not a limitation to the speed of the existence of matter-energy.
The only problem is that neither examples nor explanations have been
found to substantiate just such an event. There may be no limit to the
speed, to the motion of spacetime/motion itself. This may only make
sense from the perspective, that if there is a limit to movement, then
that means there is a limit to space/time, since movement is spacetime.
The case may be that we need to rethink the numbers, and the events
that reflect those numbers.
There appears to be a contradiction of terms in the equation by definition.
By definition, nothing exceeds the speed of light. Yet, the equation
is so expressed.
E
= Mc2
[ non-existing spacetime event by definition]
One may think the equation as energy equals matter times the square
of the speed of light times speed of light
[
Energy equals Matter times c (energy) times c (energy) ]
In
this case, energy is supposedly equivalent to matter expressed as of
two forms of energy (light times light). The equation is stating
is that there exists a relation of equivalency between matter and energy
in the form as an expression of light/energy. The advantage of
the c-square expression times matter in the cited equation affords a
very large number to the expression of the transformation of matter
into energy or viceversa. The numerical values produced by the
procedure in the equation produce incommensurable numbers.
Consider the usual nearsightedness in the analysis of the explosion
of an atomic bomb. Supposedly this equation portrays the potency of
a nuclear bomb. When in fact, if one measures the sustained long-lasting
effects of an atomic explosion that for an uncountable number of years
continue to affect matter by producing cancer in people who suffered
near such an explosion, those devastating effects are immeasurable.
The transformation of matter-energy in a nuclear bomb explosion is not
limited to the act of the explosion itself, but far reaches into unperceived
and ignored consequences.
The
transformation of matter into energy and viceversa, then, can only be
expressed in an algebraic notation equation as:
E
= M [potentially existing spacetime
event]
Energy equals matter in any of its forms, and may be transformed from
one state to another. Energy and matter are redundant, two forms of
the same spacetime/movement. To make such a statement, there is no need
in fact to square anything, because it is not even a case of energy
(e) equals matter (m) times light speed (c), but simply matter exists
relationally in equivalency to energy. Nothing is squared as such; in
fact it is impossible to multiple energy times matter physically, but
only theoretically. Matter and energy can only be added and subtracted,
be it may at nearly the speed of light in a collider or particle accelerator.
Consider the theoretical options then:
E = M
[equivalency relation E/M]
E = Mc
[non-equivalency relation E/M]
E = Mc2
[non-equivalency
relation E/M]
E = Mc3
[non-equivalency
relation E/M]
From
my perspective, only the first equation exists as an expression of the
relation of equivalency between matter and energy, a form of spacetime/movement.
The other options are poetry in physics.
Consider
the respective prose of each one of the previous options:
Energy
equals matter
Energy
equals matter times the speed of light
Energy
equals matter times the speed of light times the speed of light
Energy
equals matter times the speed of light times the speed of light
times
the speed of light.
Infinitely
so...
In a sense, just as two distinct square root numbers exist for the numerical
expressions of the speed of light (1.731451582 fractal and 5.475330657
fractal), one may suggest that neither the square root of the speed
of light exists, nor the square of the speed of light exists as specific
spacetime/motion events of matter-energy. They are, in the end, simply
abstracted numbers. Given the three dimensions of spacetime, Einstein
would have done better by employing the cube of the speed of light (
2.694400242 x 1016
), instead of its square notation value ( 8.987551787 x 1010
). The fractal expression of the square appears to be a larger number
than its cube expression due to the scientific notation. In either case,
the same/similar observations obtain from this analysis.
__________________
NB.- I cannot resist in pointing out an aspect of the square root
values for the numerical expressions of the speed of light that pertain
to the ancient reckoning system. The Maya just happened to have
chosen a fractal value for the difference between the square root numbers
relating to the speed of light.
5.475 – 1.731 = 3.744 halves to 1872 [1872000 is the Maya
long Period]
©2006
Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. Reproduction prohibited. All
rights reserved.
Charles Johnson, email: johnson@earthmatrix.com
Earth/matriX,
P.O. Box 231126 New Orleans, LA 70183-1126
| Home | Findings | Releases | Forum | Images | Reviews | Links | Author |