Page 8 of 10

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:59 am
by James S Saint
Void_X_Zero wrote:The logic of self-valuing is also basic. What could exist which does not hold itself in existence by using that which it is as a standard of selection for its interactions?

Well, it has become obvious that FC can no longer rationalize his pet project, perhaps you can put together a valid ontology for him. If you believe that you can, please have at it. I would rather him succeed through the intelligence of others than fail via the demonics of his environment.

I had asked FC a few very relevant questions (which he was too brain-dead to answer):
James S Saint wrote:What is between one self-valuing and another? Nothingness? How much? How big? How dense? How does it move?

Can you perhaps help him out, because without those answers, he doesn't actually have an ontology at all.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:10 pm
by Fixed Cross
Unbelievably silly.

Obviously there is nothing "between" self valuings.
The whole point to an ontology is to figure out how phenomena relate to each other, how they are grounded in each other.

"AO" is just a cheap extremely silly trick of words "oh, uhhhh.... well, it touches, so existence it called touchiness". RM is "Touchiness ontology".

Obviously one self valuing relates to another through..... wait for it.... valuing.

Euhr.

James, your stupidity is even more demonic than your dishonesty.
Your ontology will be forgotten as soon as you leave this green Earth.
Mine is already ruling the heads of quite a bunch of intelligent people, who are even so still struggling to really grasp the core that VO points to - as it points to the very depths of their own truthfulness, which most of them have not yet discovered the courage to access. VO draws out courage and sends those who lack it into convulsions, an careers them, brings out great hostility and insanity - like Trump, who is a good example of the logic.

Your "relevant" questions are too stupid to fathom. If an ontology holds a specific principle as the fundamental unit, what kind of idiot would ask what is between these units?

AO does not pertain to any real world object. It is a failed, completely infantile, debilitated form of hyper-simplification.
VO pertains to any observable object, and allows us to take that object as a fixed value and define and decipher the workings of everything around it.

VO allows us to take any entry point in reality and induce the character of its environment. AO allows us to do precisely nothing - except as James demonstrates, behave like a retard with Tourettes disease.

All these questions you asked are answered by physics. Unlike AO, VO works with physics, and with all exact sciences. VO in fact integrates all physics. It is the logic of both Relativity and QM, as Ive explained hundreds of times by now.

Apparently it is too powerful to be shared freely. It just doesn't compute with people that they would be granted such a powerful tool without having earned it. And logically, VO itself is among the strictest of all self-valuings - it does not compute with falsehood, weakness, and certainly not with stupidity. But all these are the same things - the absence of integrity.

All comments from haters following this post predictable do not include any logical arguments, and a lot of personal insults. That is what you get for actually creating something. But its only right that bad people should not be capable of appreciating something truly, fundamentally and irreversibly good.

This is the last post these trolls will get the opportunity to warm themselves on - you see how quickly James got here. People in the future will be surprised that I remained here so long, in the least appreciative environment possible - the reasons will remain in the dark, except to those who have grasped Nietzsche.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:30 pm
by James S Saint
Your jealousy makes you into such a deep hearted and egocentric liar.

The simple truth is that you don't actually have an ontology at all. "The universe is made of self-valuing" does NOT comprise an ontology. It was only a beginning for you many years ago, from which you have made no actual progress.

You merely lust to be worshiped as a god. Earning any such worship never even crossed your mind.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:09 pm
by Mithus
James, why do you still bother with this megalomaniac nutcase?

(And FC, I'm not one of your "haters". You aren't worth such a deep emotion)

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:35 am
by James S Saint
Fixed Cross wrote:Mine is already ruling the heads of quite a bunch of intelligent people

Sorry, but totally selfishness was driving "quite a bunch of intelligent people", long, long before you were born. You haven't added anything but the erroneous word "ontology".
Mithus wrote:James, why do you still bother with this megalomaniac nutcase?

The "good guys" avoid condemnation at every reasonable opportunity, often long after the simple minded have long since chosen to hate. Some people actually grow up from being slapped. But then, some do not. It's a calculated risk. :-?

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:03 am
by surreptitious75
James wrote:
Energy is not Mass. Energy is the ability to accomplish or affect. Mass is the ability to possess inertia

Energy is the ability to perform work but it is not only moving objects that have this ability but static
ones as well. Therefore the fact they are static makes zero difference. In that respect energy is mass

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:11 am
by James S Saint
surreptitious75 wrote:
James wrote:
Energy is not Mass. Energy is the ability to accomplish or affect. Mass is the ability to possess inertia

Energy is the ability to perform work but it is not only moving objects that have this ability but static
ones as well. Therefore the fact they are static makes zero difference. In that respect energy is mass

What does being "static" have to do with anything we were talking about? A static potential has no mass.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:58 pm
by surreptitious75
James wrote:
A static potential has no mass

I have no idea what a static potential is but static objects have both mass and energy and energy equals mass
Energy may only be used when an object is in motion but still exists within the object when it is not in motion
Because an object without energy would not be able to move at all

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:38 pm
by James S Saint
surreptitious75 wrote:
James wrote:
A static potential has no mass

I have no idea what a static potential is but static objects have both mass and energy and energy equals mass
Energy may only be used when an object is in motion but still exists within the object when it is not in motion
Because an object without energy would not be able to move at all

Well, you have the words, but...

A stationary mass can be broken up such as to release EMR energy. As a stationary mass, it can do no work and thus has no energy. Mass and energy are NOT the same thing. Mass is a property of inertia and/or point of gravitational migration. That is not the same as "ability to do work".

There is "potential energy" such as a voltage or a gravitational displacement which has the ability to do work only when released to do so. Thus a mass is a type of "potential energy" storage incapable of doing work until the inner EMR is released. The amount of work stored within a mass can be calculated by E=mc^2.

In all cases, the EMR is doing the "work". Even gravitational migration is due to ultra-minuscule EMR. But EMR has no mass, no inertia (by concurrent definition of inertia). Energy doesn't equal mass and mass doesn't equal energy. Mass is a storage mechanism of energy that possesses inertia. Work is accomplished through EMR, void of mass/storage.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:59 pm
by Jakob
We might still discover slow conversion of energy from mass in the interaction of quarks, which I believe to be a more significant level of study than the boson, which is only for theoretical aesthetics. The quark seems to have some nifty magic going on we don't know about yet. The potential energy of any mass in the universe is disclosed continuously in relation to other masses, to which it gravitates, causing collisions and heat. The object breaks down slowly as it collides with other objects, and so its mass is slowly converted into weak EMR. Entropy or nuclear blasts, and then there is life, which discloses the potential energy of its mass into actions.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:55 pm
by Jakob
Apparently the Standard Model is under scrutiny.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:18 pm
by Exuberant Teleportation
When I was in 6th grade, it was my 1st real exposure to that code, and the interchangeability of matter and energy was nothing compared to the revelation I had in 11th grade, while reading Michio Kaku's Hyperspace that THE FASTER YOU GO THROUGH SPACE, THE SLOWER YOU GO THROUGH TIME!

And you can never reach the speed of light, because the closer you get to it, the more mass you will gain from the energy of your speed. All of that extra luggage will just slow you down, never letting you get that fast.

Is there a law of the universe that could break down, a chaotic fissure that could shatter the existential game, and rewrite the codes to let us command existence as we please? Perhaps, and to cap off this glorious achievement, we would truly be the masters of our fate, the builders of destiny.

And now how did Einstein come to fashion his marvelously elegant theory of relativity? Well, it begin with the works of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell. Everyone, we all know about Newton (who certainly wasn't as smart as Einstein, because his quotes are weaker), but Faraday/Maxwell pioneered our knowledge on electromagnetic fields, helping Einstein to visualize what would happen if we were to travel alongside a beam of light.

Now, 1 interesting thing about relativity is that space is curved by the mass of matter, and if gravity were infinite, time would stand still.

If we could achieve this timeless feature like we see at the singularities at the center of black holes, then we would invent time machines. And travelling through the wormhole, to other universes could also be fascinating but, like lightspeed, how do we get through a black hole wormhole tunnel that we've been inexorably frozen win time in?

These questions are amazingly complex, but we have the time and resources to work the impossible.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:20 am
by barbarianhorde
Exuberant Teleportation wrote:If we could achieve this timeless feature like we see at the singularities at the center of black holes, then we would invent time machines. And travelling through the wormhole, to other universes could also be fascinating but, like lightspeed, how do we get through a black hole wormhole tunnel that we've been inexorably frozen win time in?

These questions are amazingly complex, but we have the time and resources to work the impossible.

I like this mission.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 3:55 pm
by Jakob
I noticed that no one has given any clue over these years to answer the OPs question.

How the hell does it work that two entirely separate unit types, speed and energy, became part of the same formula that happens to predict all physical relations?

Were the units for speed and energy secretly derived from the same source originally? How?

It remains mysterious. Ive not met anyone who could resolve this, most people were blissfully unaware of the extraordinary nature of this equation.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 5:20 pm
by Ecmandu
Jakob wrote:I noticed that no one has given any clue over these years to answer the OPs question.

How the hell does it work that two entirely separate unit types, speed and energy, became part of the same formula that happens to predict all physical relations?

Were the units for speed and energy secretly derived from the same source originally? How?

It remains mysterious. Ive not met anyone who could resolve this, most people were blissfully unaware of the extraordinary nature of this equation.


The speed of light squared sounds very arbitrary to me, why not e=m(>c)? It's a contradiction!

How do you square the cosmological constant?

I actually think this formula is bullshit, misinformation from the government, and government elites to keep people stupid.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 11:29 pm
by Ecmandu
Ecmandu wrote:
Jakob wrote:I noticed that no one has given any clue over these years to answer the OPs question.

How the hell does it work that two entirely separate unit types, speed and energy, became part of the same formula that happens to predict all physical relations?

Were the units for speed and energy secretly derived from the same source originally? How?

It remains mysterious. Ive not met anyone who could resolve this, most people were blissfully unaware of the extraordinary nature of this equation.


The speed of light squared sounds very arbitrary to me, why not e=m(>c)? It's a contradiction!

How do you square the cosmological constant?

I actually think this formula is bullshit, misinformation from the government, and government elites to keep people stupid.


So...

I didn't articulate this well enough! Sorry!

When I gave the formula e=m(>c), I meant that even THAT was a contradiction!

How can you have a greater than for the cosmological constant?

I mean, is this just some kind of basic IQ test to get to higher eschelons of the top secret tech world?

E=mc^2 is a basic contradiction

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:40 am
by Pedro I Rengel
How about that the speed of light is energy divided by mass divided by the speed of light.

Wha??

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:45 am
by Pedro I Rengel
I guess energy being so much superior to the speed of light itself gives the need for mass.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:50 am
by Pedro I Rengel
What is light?

Electrons jumping from atom to atom is electricity.

Light is... Fuck I forget. Was long time ago. It was something akin. A wave in the sense that it is about contact between atoms, but a ray in that it's too fast to spread outwards.

What was it again?

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:51 am
by Pedro I Rengel
Magnetism had something to do with it...

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:53 am
by Pedro I Rengel
Electrons jumping ahead of electrons... I gotta look into this.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:02 am
by Pedro I Rengel
Right it's like.... A shifting of electric charge through magnetism. So a constant changing of the configuration for the potential of electrons jumping through. Basically the extreme-end, most tenuous possible relationship between anything and any other. The fastest anything can be. And energy is far greater than that.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:06 am
by Pedro I Rengel
But why the transferability?

Well because energy just can't be the fastest interaction of mass. Would leave no mass to interact, too weak to hold up mass.

Ok I'm dizzy. But it makes sense.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:12 am
by Pedro I Rengel
How do we know energy is so much greater than the speed of light? And than mass?

Well because black holes swallow light. They get to the thing before it can transmit to the other thing.

Kinda fucked.

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:27 am
by Pedro I Rengel
So whereas speed is usually taken to be relative, Einstein gives us that it is time that is relative. See? Cause speed is just stuff. Stuff that is there, moving. What time? that's not... First you have the thing. So there is also no space. Only the interactions. And time and space sort of fill the gap, whatever gap is there. That doesn't exist.

Wow I just realized I had this epiphany over at btl froma different vantage point. Hahaha. Genious is...

But anyway. Look.

Lookee here.

Stuff is real. That is Einstein. Stuff is real, and it doesn't interact, it IS interaction. Stuff is as stuff does. And the relative magnitudes between the stuffhappenings is the relativity of time and space. Because it is the stuff that is real. Not the time and space. They are just differences in orders of magnitude between places. Places precede space. It is not stuff that takes up space. It is space that takes up stuff.