(c) as a constant, ever ask why!, Can we look deeper, many have asked?

Hi Laidback,

Let's have another go at 'dimensions' .. I'll call them 'Units' so we don't get confused with other things (maybe)

A Joule is defined here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule#SI_multiples

If you want PE and you stay stay close to the Earth you get

PE = m g h

Where m is mass [kg] , g is an acceleration [ metres/seconds/seconds] or [metres/second^2] and h is a distance [metres]

so PE uses the units of [kg][metre]^2 / [seconds]^2 .. same as the Joules in the wiki .. which makes sense because PE is energy and energy is measured in Joules.

Looking at KE we have

KE = 1/2 m v^2

Where m is mass [kg] and v^2 is [metres]/[seconds] x [metres]/[seconds]

so KE uses the units of [kg][metre]^2 / [seconds]^2 .. same as the Joules in the wiki .. which makes sense because KE is also energy and energy is measured in Joules.(JUST LIKE PE!!)

If you divide PE (Joules) by KE (also Joules) you get a number, a pure number.. not a very helpful number as we are seeing here. The usual way would be to say that (for a closed system) PE + KE = K where K is a constant (a number of Joules).. the total energy of the system (assuming nothing else is going on).

If a man starts with X goats and finishes with Y goats then the number of goats lost is (X-Y) .. a number of goats. X/Y is the ratio of the number of goats he started off with divided by the number of goats he finished with .. a NUMBER .. not a quantity of goats

Somehow I don't think this will help :( .. but at least I tried :) .

Best wishes -C2.

Hi I am very happy to be able to shed some , I suppose new, light on the subject of Planck's 'constant'. This is part of a multi-year and multi-national investigation.

it's called "a meta-theoretical analysis on combining particle physics with real world phenomena"


I'm not yet allowed to post links here so you'll have to copy-paste:

listen.to/einstein

also be sure to check the videos, links , bibliography and on the subject of Planck, the letters.

Have Fun,
HeebieJeebies

BINGO!

What you are trying to say or clarify is that when we work with a quantity then what we start of with should always remain as is - Or if we divide up the quantity, then each portion (Dimension) or (even a fraction with a new definition and perhaps even further divided) should always equate back to our single dimension after re-conversions are considered..

Of course what makes the exercise complex is when the system or single dimension is a sub-system or one of a multiple quantities that are open to exchange quantity with each other .. So to recap,

when one refers to E=MC^2 we totally forget about "Joules", "Quantity of divisions or sub-systems", "Meters", "Seconds" we treat each unknown variable exactly as a unit so that when we calculate the divisions of "E" they do indeed equate to "E"

Now if "E" is a reference to a closed system then "E" must not be with change to it.

For example 1=1*1^2 now if we have "E" open to changes as in - It can impart part of itself unto another system or subsystem or vice Vs another open system is able to divide itself and part with some of its quantity unto our system we are considering, then our Energy would rise, and if "C" remained unchanged in our equation then what we have is a C^2 experiencing compression and or an increase in density, via a potential with momentum to it entering our system.

for example here is one system"-" and here is another system"-" and lets place these in a single system with the dimensions of height by width or we can define our two dimensions to potential by Kinetic so in this example we have a one by two "--" inference, and here we have changed our system to a two by one "="

so whats the big deal? Well if we refer to our dimensions being potential energy or kinetic energy what we have is two distinct states where one implies a low potential but with high kinetics "A Near vacuum" while the other has double the potential but low kinetics.."Perhaps a Gas" So in this case we are implying a whole systems kinetic dimension has been placed within another systems kinetic dimension, And that to me is a compression!

Now we should note, when a system or sub-system needs to divide and part with a quantity - As in PE/KE, the reality is the KE imparted and introduced to another system and or subsystem is merely a division of Potential energy from the system that is imparting with some of its Potential, it should be further noted this unit of KE can be messed around with via it can be further divided into two three dimensions and or subsystems, so on and so on.

Anyway getting back to why "C" it's all in the maths as to why "c" and for the maths that is best left for each individual to connect any Fundamental constant with the following other Fundamental constants, as I am restricted with time lately..

Uo :- permeability of free space
Eo :-permittivity of free space
e :- charge of an electron
mc :- Rest mass
mp :- Rest mass of a Proton
mn :- Rest mass of a Neutron
e/m :- electron charge-to mass ratio
re :- electron radius
h :- Planck Constant
k :- Boltzmann constant
F :- Faraday Constant

One more thing we can do if we know our Fundamental constants or basic maths is we are able to convert one unit or definition into other divisions and or multiples of it to different definitions, as in from energy to its dimensions in meters, of if we have the dimensions of an object with a known substance or element we can work out how much energy it consists of..

Nuff said, as I am sure we all know this anyways, besides I have much to do today...

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

Damn Straight!
A near vacuum is a 3D area or Volume with very little Potential or Force to it, via the lacking opposing velocities within reference volume and or 3D Area.

Whilst a Gas, Liquid and Solid, are each with a sequentially greater Potential than the previous mentioned state, it should also be noted the Kinetic quanta for each sequential state is Less.
Near vacuum = A high Kinetic but Low Potential eg:- 299792458/1 <- Maximum velocity (change) and or Kinetics hence maximum velocity or "c"
Gas = A lower ratio of kinetic compared to a near vacuum/but it is with a higher ratio of Potential and or Force to it.
Liquid = Is an even lower ratio of Kinetic energy but with a greater potential or force to it.

And obviously a Solid has the most relative Potential because it is so much more compressed via the many more opposing velocities, and because of all of those opposing velocities the implied volume and or 3D area presents as if the Kinetic energy is almost non existent, I mean how else can it present as solid if the opposing velocities are not cancelled out and or kinetic quanta is exchanged to potential quanta?

The key is all energy is a RELATIVE solid and yet can also be a RELATIVE near vacuum, we can prove this relativity by the speed of escaping air from a compressors slow leaking valve, and should the valve completely fail then you will experience a lot more opposing velocities that may even kill you!

Another method to get the gist of potential and kinetic ratios is we can simply slap a liquid fast or very slow to get a better idea of the opposing velocities presented..

Anyway I gotta go..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

Never asked why because light speed is not a constant
never was M&M said so, but there was at least an 8 KM/sec error in their determinations.

Light in the cosmos can have any speed, it depends upon the area it is in.

Secondly light does not travel in straight lines, it is always bent!

Hi guys,

I forgot about this place wow it has been awhile, surely has changed somewhat, NO it has changed to a very great degree. I could make an attempt to add to ©, but it would only be redundant to what has been already said on this post.

Were did everyone go, it seems more like a testosterone battle, now, what a shame.

Glad to see C2, Good Elf has stayed, all bright one's (few exceptions) have left. Checked the negatives (this is new) and the comments for some, I know work in facilities that the ones being so rude could only wish or dream about. Go figure?

qds