How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Do not fault me for your failure to read what I wrote very carefully.

You have not refuted that, at all.

You really should bother to read some history on that subject before you go embarrassing yourself again. Can you point to anything I said about the details that was incorrect?

Speaking of history the progenitor of E=mc^2 or at least energy mass equivalence as I opined earlier was not actually Einstein. Since someone asked for sources here is one:

physicsworld.com/cws/article/new … mc-squared

It had been around for a while, which of course does nothing to denigrate his efforts to put it into a scientifically testable and consistent hypothesis which could be shown.

In fact even before the 20th and even the 19th century some people were well used to the idea that there was an equivalence between energy and mass.

I can’t remember or find the exact quote Newton used to describe equivalence, but it ran along the lines of light being related in it’s proportion to the mass of an object.

What the “bullshit” is quite seriously is, “if my worshipful masters didn’t say, then it is bullshit”. It is just another of the very many examples of the weak minded accusing others of their own guilt.

Note that Ed3 has NEVER done that.
… nor have I.

…and a wise man doesn’t “publish” anything until he assesses the responses to it… even from the “crackpot”" worshipers.

Well that rant was random.

The problem is not that you assess the responses, it’s the affect that you see all negative criticism as brainwashed conspiracy by the establishment to keep you down, which is why you in fact will always be a crackpot, and it is why you will never publish anything. And don’t think I am saying this just to keep you down, you are doing it to yourself your putting yourself in a position that is so anti any sort of scientific method that no one will ever listen to you. If you don’t play the game by the rules James you will never publish anything. Which is of course sad, we need thinkers and dreamers, what we don’t need is supercilious people who think they can bypass the whole scientific process with conjecture, get a free ride just because they have some conjectural idea that denies all scientific progress. Telling others that they are crackpots because they at least went the whole nine yards is another symptom of the crackpot. James everyone who knows anything about anything is telling you you are not right, this is not because they are jealous of your brilliance, brainwashed or just don’t get how mighty you are, this is because you are so devout in your belief that your religion is all you can hear.

James you publish something in the future and when you do send me a paper in an accredited journal and I will thank all that is holy that you actually listened to someone at some point. I dare you, I double dare you. Sadly I think you will remain a crank all your life, and that I do not want. You have to wake up and smell the coffee though, you cannot magically pass GO! and collect £200 pounds without actually passing GO!

No. The “problem” is that You never actually discuss the topic, merely worshipfully attack the poster in an attempt to give praise to yourself and your most honorable masters along with Twit and quite a few others around here.

I have discussed the topic on numerous occasions, this methinks is an excuse so that you don’t have to answer any questions. I can and have showed you where I have addressed your topic and not actually attacked you in fact dozens of times over many years. Do you really think your cowardice is going to play forever. The fact is you don’t have any answers, so you shift the onus onto some imaginary fantasy that people are making about you, and pretty much anyone with any sense just sees it immediately, you don’t do science you just make excuses. And it’s not just me either you do it with everyone who has attacked you, avoid deny and hide. If it was just me you’d have a point but you just wont discuss things with people on this forum if you are asked difficult questions. It shows you up as nothing but a crackpot.

Yes the irony in what you said is not lost on me. You never actually address anyone’s arguments yourself, because as you see it they are all subservient to some masters that you have imagined in your world, it’s all about your delusion that everyone is controlled in their belief, they just cant understand you because there are some illuminati type organisations brainwashing people into not accepting your magnificent truth. Do you not understand how delusional you sound there? This is not rational james the Science establishment is not set up to keep claims out it is set up to keep conjecture based on nothing but you’re insistence on its veracity out.

James this is constructive criticism, if you chose to go on doing what you do, ignoring what people say, not responding to people, using repetition and obfuscation as a means to an end, then all anyone in any world whether on a forum or in the real world is ever going to think is that you are a crackpot. Take that as you will, we’re all trying to keep you down. Well no, we’re all actually trying to wake you up. Play the game by the rules, even if you think they are false, answer to your peers even if you think they are brainwashed and you will actually get somewhere. Keep on doing what you are doing and the only thing you will achieve is nothing. Achieve something, prove me wrong? We can but hope. We’re not trying to rob you James we’re trying to help you, sadly you are robbing yourself. Short of an intervention that sends you into logic rehab there’s little anyone can do to help you at the moment.

Only the tiny bit to use as an excuse to attack the poster, thus… Liar.
Thus the rest of what you said is disregarded… along with just about everything you say.

You are here only by the grace of moderators who forgive the rules so that you will have a place to play. And then you curse them for letting you know. The greater problem is that children grow to the age of 80 and beyond, yet never seem to mature.

But telling a child to stop being childish is a bit pointless, as your babysitters are discovering.

ok now this is just trolling.

Einstein and Marcel Grossman developed some specifics within differential geometry needed for GR.

Yeah I know about Darwin. But what you said, you said.
If you don’t want the come-back then avoid hyperbole.
If you have a good point to make it’s always better to make it without exaggeration.
And advising someone to read more carefully is a bit rich when you have not taken the care needed to write the thing in the first place.

Hi PhysBang,

Thanks for the reference.

Ed

The pro-science anti-RM ralliers here are like the new Inquisition. Their “every valid theory must rely on the logic that I have trained myself in” is equal to “every valid theory must correspond to the Bible”.

Abstract was the only one here who asked the tuly difficult questions about RM. Unfortunately these questions remained unanswered in favor of debating trolls like HHW, who is only here because he’s apparently obsessed with James.

Following Abstracts lead, I would argue that PtA consists of relativity itself - of the single property of being local and (thus) differentiated from homogeneity.

Physbang and Twiffy - you may be experts in math, but that can just be autism. In order to apply math soundly to the real world, you need to be able to reason.

Then it is YOU that has not been reading properly.
Maybe had you not butted into a discussion i was having with another person, you’d not now be acting so trollishly?

I think there might be a cognitive problem suggesting that one sort of metaphysical abstraction “consists” of another.

Both (PtA and relativity) are unfortunate, but perhaps the only, ways of delimiting a description of a whole: the fabric of reality - I think this will always be a problem in human cognition.
It seems we chase our tails in wanting to provide a unified theory nad always have to fall back on describing it in bite size pieces.

Sigh.

You wrote idiotic things like, “Einstein used his imagination. He looked at a sunbeam and asked what it would be like to travel on the wave,” like that weak shit is supposed to impress us. Then you throw around the names of a philosopher like you are supposed to know who he is. I doubt that you do, since you don’t know enough about epistemology to know the common philosophical use of the term “belief”.

I have no idea why you want to defend crackpots, but since that’s the role you’ve taken up, you should get all the respect you deserve.

Half-granted. But I am trying to answer Abstracts question, and it’s difficult without resorting to semantics that are linguistically problematic. And I do think that the two concepts are the same “thing” but in a different semantic context. Let’s try to break through the context-barriers.

I was sneakily setting up another referral to value ontology, which brings all of these abstractions together in coherent terms. Because it does not rely on the assumption that there is a basic substance, instead postulates a basic logical limit by which we are forced to understand whatever substance we can observe and conceive of.

That weak shit was words from his own mouth. Get over it

When someone describes what Darwin does makes him a crackpot, I’ll defend Darwin every time.