M2 Frequently Asked Questions
Rebuilding data after system data loss. Please bear with us….
Q: How did we get so confused between M1 and M2?
A: The answer to that question is best answered by the article written by Dr. Lev Okun, Moscow University who wrote a great article years ago about this situation entitled: “The Concept of Mass” which tells this story and links the divergence on this point to Wolfgang Pauli. The interpretative model of the Universe consistent with Einstein’s original belief is M2 not M1.
Q: What is the primary distinction between M1 and M2?
A: In M1 mass is considered variant and in M2 mass is invariant. The latter is what Einstein believed. Einstein did not believe mass was variant. See his letter to Lincoln Barnett.
Q: How many of the historical experiments performed confirming the vality of relativity mode shift?
A: Every one we tested mode shifted within the parameters of those investigations. We have every reason to believe that every experiment ever performed confirming this EIM will also mode shift.
Q: Why will M2 never accomplish unification?
A: The logically correct nature of the relationships between its core constructs preclude attaining unification.
Q: What is it about the core constructs of M2 that preclude unification?
A: Energy, mass, and spacetime are the core constructs of M2 with the latter also integrating the speed of light as a fourth dimensional element as an analogous unit of time. Nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. That hard cold fact is the reason all real objects in any given reference frame can not share a common geometric basis point nor can they be fully coupled to the reference frame for the same reasons. This insight means that no EIM employing these constructs in this manner will ever accomplish unification.
Q: Will M2 achieve unification if higher energies are considered?
Q: How do clues to the logical nature of M2 manifest themselves?
A: M2 is considered logically correct. The congruence with which equation results align is a testament to that logical correctness fact. That is to say that the detail set within the domain of discourse dovetail into a logically correct interpretative model; however, that model fails to close to unification. We must remember that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different.
Q: Is the logical construct of spacetime analogous to the luminiferous aether?
A: That depends on who you talk to and the context of the conversation. Spacetime is rarely ever directly compared to the luminiferous aether discussed in Thought Experiment 0065. Having said that if we were to compare behavior characteristics between the two we may find considerable overlap in many circles.
Q: How are real objects made manifest by M2?
A: By rearranging the nuclear binding engergy discussed by EMCS01 Concept 0289 we can conclude that M2 manifests real objects represented by m in those equations by the other constituents of the EIM which are spacetime (represented by c) and energy (E). The issue then is whether or not spacetime is a real construct or a logical construct. If it is real, and can warp at all, then it must be imbued with other characteristics like stress, tension, etc. If a Neutron or Proton, both of which unambiguously have mass are so represented then how is it they move through spacetime without any influence on those other characteristics? Why do these particles not immediately unravel and instantly convert to their primordial constituents? If the original Big Bang employs something called ‘rapid expansion’ to explain the current extent of our portion of the Universe then why did it stop expanding and why? There are many such questions which M2 simply can not answer and which constitute logic artifacts of this EIM.
#ElegantReasonism #Unification #M2 #LevBOkun #Einstein #InvariantMass