C Squared

GD,

It doesn't matter if you accept "Pushing Gravity" as a concept or not but this site by TVF supports that view and a boo by that title is available. UniKEF is my work which is far less developed than "Pushing Gravity" but none the less is a pushing gravity concept.

The term has to do with gravity being a mechanical function of external energy transfer by absorbtion and/or attentuation vs the Newtonian view of every mass attracts everyother mass (by some mysterious force or property of matter) or by curved space (which also fails to provide a cause).



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

The use of square mass or square velocity seems like a good way to solve math problems much like using things like the square root of minus one or other such things. The problem I see with C^2 is the exact value assigned to it. Would there be a need for inventing particles if that value was not fixed as it is? Do you need a neutrino if C^2 was changed to suit the need that exists for it?

Jim,

I personally share the idea that c^2 is a somewhat arbitrary number and I'm reasonably sure it has not be emperically verified as being an exact fit for reality. I can see v^2 more readily in energy conversion than I could mass squared in gravity. Once a pushing type gravity concept developed in my mind then the mass squared made sense as being an indirect measure of the absorbtion or transfer coefficient of a kenetic energy driving source.

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

In order to validate the assumptions concerning accelerating bodies and the relationship between c^2 and energy, a few observations on the dynamics of our solar system would have to be made:

As the solar system's linear velocity increases,

- does the orbiting speed of the planets decrease?
- are the orbits more elliptical?
- has there been a change in its trajectory and is now pointing towards the center of the galaxy?
- is Jupiter closest to the Sun?
- is there a noted increase in global warming?

As the solar system's linear velocity decreases,

- does the orbiting speed of the planets increase?
- are the orbits more circular?
- has there been a change in its trajectory and is now pointing away from the center of the galaxy?
- is Jupiter farthest from the Sun?
- is there a sustained decrease in global temperatures?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Quantum_Gravity</i>
<br />go to the third page on paradoxes and dilemas

[quote:

---

"E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light"

---

square of the velocity of light = (velocity of light ) * (velocity of light )= (3 * 10^9 m/s) * (3 * 10^9 m/s)= 9 * 10^18 m^2/s^2= c^2

That what Einstein told and the unit are m^2/s^2 (not a speed)

If you consider c as a vector c^2 is a scalar.
What is the problem?



The intuitive mind
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

All due respect, my phellow physics buffs, but this thread should have ended with the quote above.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Samizdat</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Quantum_Gravity</i>
<br />go to the third page on paradoxes and dilemas

[quote:

---

"E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light"

---

square of the velocity of light = (velocity of light ) * (velocity of light )= (3 * 10^9 m/s) * (3 * 10^9 m/s)= 9 * 10^18 m^2/s^2= c^2

That what Einstein told and the unit are m^2/s^2 (not a speed)

If you consider c as a vector c^2 is a scalar.
What is the problem?



The intuitive mind
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

All due respect, my phellow physics buffs, but this thread should have ended with the quote above.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Samizdat,

Well, the problem is that if c is a vector then c^2 is not a scalar unless you have defined c^2:=&lt;c,c&gt;=sqrt(c1*c1+...+cn*cn). Thus, you have defined an inner product on an n-dimensional vector space E over the field R. An inner product is a linear map &lt;.,.&gt;: E x E --&gt; R.

Of course, we can define an inner product over the complex numbers as well, but we are talking about the SOL constant "c", which is a real number. Now, the expression E=mc^2 is not a vector expression at all since "c" is the light speed, a magnitude, not a vector.

Just to make sure that we define our terminology rigorously. []