Hi Jose
I dont wish to enter a debate, but would like to attempt to put a different spin on the discussion you and James are having, if I may. Just food for thought.
Ideally, our mathematical constructs which try to model nature, would be as closer match to what nature is actually doing as possible. So if James approach was just another way of doing the maths without any regard for this ideal, then it might even be a more efficient way of doing things, but it still wouldn't really be a big deal at all. But, if James approach does represent a closer approximation of what nature is actually doing, as well as being a more convenient and efficient description, then that would make it rather more important.
So the question is, is there any evidence James approach is a closer representation of what nature is actually doing? Personally I believe there are dozens of reasons to think so.
A detective entering a crime scene, might list the prime suspects and start looking at their associations with one another. So he/she notes an association between energy, and mass and how they are both associated via the speed of light C, (e=mc2). He/she might think to them self, why is the energy value of mass a tidy multiple of the speed of light? C is a velocity, so why is the energy value of mass neatly associated with a velocity m/s? This evidence represents a proportional equivalence, so why?
Convention might state things in a way that leads to a dead end, like "light and mass are both forms of energy, and all energy forms share an equivalence. But because energy is only considered to be a book keeping system that doesn't actually correspond to anything physical, it breaks the chain of evidentary inquiry. no Answers given.
But our detective wants to solve this mystery, so doesnt mind making a couple of assumptions if it promises to open up a line of investigation. So he/she notes the association mass has with C, and posses the question, "are they physically related, directly or indirectly so?". Then turns up the evidence that mass is primarily generated by the strong nuclear force, which is to say a Gluon, which is a Gauge Boson. And that light is a Photon, that is also a Gauge Boson.
Anyway, I've gotten a little carried away with my detective rendition, so I'll reign it in. But a couple of very natural questions will be, if velocity plays an obvious role in a photons function, and our assessment of its energy value. And Gluons generation of mass corresponds to a proportional consideration of velocity C, then perhaps mass is a function of photonic velocity? If mass is a function of photonic velocity, then it is not just an arbitrary preference as to whether or not mass units should be defined in m/s. James approach will be approaching an important truth.
The associations are the only clues that there are, period. A detective that recognizes only the clues which suits his/her preference, is not a good detective. All of the associations are important, and it might be considered that there may be no such thing as coincidences. Conventional approaches fracture a lot of prospective associations, and some remarkably obvious ones. Like that between mass and velocity. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are also concepts which are fractured within conventional interpretations. And off the topic a little, also some much grander correlations than them. Like the equality between Auv and Tuv, universal expansion and universal mass. What a whopping great thing to ignore to suit ones preference for a big bang interpretation! Where are all of the proficient detectives, I might ask?
Steve
