C Squared

I agree with you. There are a lot of ways to say something in math or English. What I mean is speed squared is not logical and acceleration is logical. It is not logical to assume energy and mass are united by square speed but it is logical that acceleration unites them. Only an opinion but it gets rid of a lot of stuff left over in the math. And then I don't know anything about why the math is held in so high a reguard so maybe I'm one of the empty minded trolls.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />I agree with you. There are a lot of ways to say something in math or English. What I mean is speed squared is not logical and acceleration is logical. It is not logical to assume energy and mass are united by square speed but it is logical that acceleration unites them. Only an opinion but it gets rid of a lot of stuff left over in the math. And then I don't know anything about why the math is held in so high a reguard so maybe I'm one of the empty minded trolls.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rahul Jain

Professional Computer Programmer
Amateur Theoretical Physicist

Here is a quote from a physics book:

"A natural process that starts in one equilibrium state and ends in another will go in the direction that causes the entropy of the system plus environment to increase".

I still believe E=ma better describes nature. Water always flows downhill! The only natural way (without external forces) for matter to reverse direction is for it to convert into energy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> [GD:] I still believe E=ma better describes nature. Water always flows downhill! The only natural way (without external forces) for matter to reverse direction is for it to convert into energy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Personally, I like to think in terms of energy rather than velocities and accelerations: formulas such as F=m*a belong to the "direct methods" and are generally believed to be more involved, mainly because we are working with vectors rather than scalar quantities. Anyway, the validity of mathematical representations in physics need to be verified experimentally don't you think so? In the end, it doesn't really matter what representation we are using, as long as it serves our purpose. Hence, whatever describes nature better is the representation that matches our observations. If this is F=m*a, then that's fine, but if it is H=Kinetic+Potential, then I'm happy as well. [^]<font size="3"></font id="size3">

As a practical matter it makes no difference which process is used to determine an outcome so whatever works best seems a logical way to go about the business at hand. The reason the current theories need to be remodeled in my opinion is for quite different reasons than this. Anyway, about C^2, this constant makes no sense to me-what is square speed? Is it at all like square time or square meters?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Jim:] Anyway, about C^2, this constant makes no sense to me-what is square speed? Is it at all like square time or square meters?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are thinking too deep, I think, which is a good thing by the way. [] The SOL "c" is a constant that we can live with, that is, it just has the unit of velocity [m/s], fair enough. On the other hand, c^2 has trivially the units [m^2/s^2], not very enlighting, but should it be viewed on its own? The formula E=m*c^2 has clearly the units of energy, thus [J]=[N]*[m]=[kg*m/s^2]*[m]= [kg]*[m^2/s^2]. So we see that the constant c^2 only makes sense in view of E=m*c^2. But I may have missed the point completely.