How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

@Hobbes: Well fair enough you’re an English Teacher I think might be wrong but let’s run with the analogy: how would you feel if say Shakespeare was demeaned by people using conjecture and nothing else to slander their writing. Now take the whole of modern physics not just one author, just everything in physics now aside from old classical physics; how would you feel if someone was basically saying it was all crap? Would you not feel a little aggrieved? Would you not want to argue that somebody who hadn’t even studied the field properly was in no position to be on the cutting edge of it?

I’d probably say he was an idiot. I’d tell him so, then move on.
We are talking about James SS aren’t we?
Word to the wise: he’s not really reading what you write.

I just did a quick review of his contributions to the topic since Februrary. With the exception of one post in which he demonstrated a misunderstanding of PtA on the 23rd July, his posts have been ad homs.

Well what he reads is not as important as what the lurkers or any one else reads. But I think you are right, I should move on. There’s no real point in discussing a subject with someone who is completely unable to answer your questions for whatever reason they give, it’s good that you can see clearly that James is as guilty of what he accuses others of though. His excuses to avoid questions from almost all of the membership here, are considerable, beaten measure for measure perhaps only by his inability to actually answer them. That much is clear, and let the record show. :slight_smile:

I think most of us are pretty much done with him any way. We’re just wasting our time.

Since I made that post JSS has replied to two of my posts; both were pithy one liners and both had nothing to add to the discussion.
You are right - a time waster.

Unlike those who attempt to be the unauthorized vanguard for the “lurkers” (turning ILP into nothing but another gossip column), sometimes I just let YOU know my perspective of your ad hom attempts and/or gross naivety on a subject (such as your ability to properly statistically analyze the behavior of anyone on a forum :icon-rolleyes: )… and move on.

Those actually interested in any form of philosophy do not personally attack and thus don’t suffer the counter defenses they would have otherwise inspired. You might want to note that none of you are actually on topic nor supporting any of your lies and allegations with evidence (and even if you tried, the “out of context” issue would bite you every time).

Those who refuse to even attempt to reason and love to hate, don’t really belong on a philosophy forum.

This begs the question; why are you here?

Once again you ignore the thread and simply verify what H&HW and I have been saying about you.
Why not make a contribution?

Start a fight and blame the other person for always fighting?
…typical childishness.
As I said…

And people who refuse to even attempt to reason and love to make up stuff about physics and use it to make themselves look important, they belong on a philosophy forum?

Consider that “make you look all important” bit came strictly from your own mind.
Such happens when people are far too concerned about how important they are relative to others.
Take off your dark ego glasses.

Try to stop worrying about who is important or looks important, and you will stop presuming that people are merely trying to be so.

And then it would help to just stick to the actual topic, regardless of who looks important.

And anyone wanting to look important certainly shouldn’t show up around here because people who are actually important don’t even know that sites like this exist at all (and probably wouldn’t believe it if they saw it).

Can someone ban Hellandhighwater? He is not expressing anything besides how he’s obsessed with James.

I have no idea why it could possibly amuse someone so much to spend so much time on a personal vendetta without any intellectual content at all.

For all who are here strictly to be near James and ooze bodily fluids, if you hadn’t noticed, this thread has a TOPIC. Address the topic or crawl back under your stone, please.

I think your suggestion would be better directed at James SS.

Really? This thread is only 6 pages long, don’t tell me you’ve not even read it.
James has gone through great lengths actually answering the OP’s question.
Here’s just one outtake:

There are, besides myself, only three posters in this thread who have understood that this is not a trolling-room but a thread with a subject - JSS, Farsight and Abstract. The rest is here purely on account of JSS and the strange effect he has on people. He makes them jealous, I suppose, which is understandable seeing how little they have going for them (HAHW literally never says anything that isn’t about another poster, neither does PhysBang). But it’s very boring having to constantly scroll through all that crap.

Jakob = JSS.

Now I get it!

Yeah I tried that he put me on ignore every time I asked a valid question, making up excuses every time that it was all about him. I think there is nowhere to go, you can’t discuss a subject with someone who hasn’t once in 3 years answered your questions, whether they were ad homs or not. I have gotten to this point now simply because even when he didn’t know who I was, he would not answer my points, even when there was no ad hominem involved, he ducked and avoided them. You go on lauding him if you must be we all know he’s not playing fairly. I really don’t give a shit any more there’s nothing more to be said, he just does not want to discuss science with anyone, unless they agree with him (or they disagree in a way that is not anything to do with the general place science is, ie they are also making contentious scientific viewpoints) Suffice to say there is no place for the conventional, if you make any claim that is any way considered accepted in science you are out the door. You think it’s all about me, well you go and look at all the posts he’s made, everyone just comes up against a wall of excuses that they can not penetrate. He is discussing science with himself not any of us.

Why can’t we make points that conventional science which has had so many successes for hundreds of years must be right about something? Answer me that? When all the evidence accrued has lead to massive advances in technology why are we not allowed to use them as valid points, with such evidence forthcoming? Valid contentions in his philosophy and science repeatedly addressed and ignored?

James’s wonder thread, well even before we got to that point there were dozens of contentions he did not answer, there’s no point then having someone labour on and on about a physics which has no foundation because no one has been answered in the first place. Take the thread from the start there are dozens of points that are made that are simply ignored, which make any further discussion pointless. We cannot jump to the end of the thread now and start addressing anything, too many points have been ignored. his thread is not a discussion it’s proselytising now. It’s too late. You can’t reverse time. And he certainly wont go back and address all the salient points from all the people he missed. Maybe on a new thread somewhere, but you see how they go too, he just skips over anything inconvenient. It’s not worth it any more, it’s been going on for too long, and it has become too trite.

If James really has any interest in science he only needs to discuss all of science, not only stuff which is on the fringe. He might find, that people are more willing to forgo the ad homs (although frankly he is as guilty of that as anyone else) if he is willing to answer the questions way down the line in the first place. Bit of advice, will be ignored, but contest us not just the fringe and you might find a dialogue, atm it’s just a James monologue. This is a discussion board not a James Board.

I and everyone else is equitable, let’s say the next thread on science that is posted James has a disagreement with, when people ask valid questions, he answers first before he proceeds to explain the universe. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask. All science has a place in argument not just way out ideas yes?

Incidentally I know it doesn’t matter but I understand everything James posted there, it’s really just saying what physics already says and using different terms. affectance is equally explained by wave/particle theory as it is by James, it’s just plagiarism. I’ve said that before that all of his terms could merely be replaced by any other theory, they add nothing discrete.

Gradients which energy distribution must overcome as explained by conventional physics. Delayed is just saying what is already said.

Energy becomes confined by more energy or mass, is actually just saying energy density creates greater gradients which hence impede objects in space, it’s all just the same thing.

Of course the waffle about free space is unnecessary since no such thing exists. Essentially though massless objects propagate at c, unless another force is acting on them. It really is not distinct from current theory and I see no reason to believe it is anything that anyone else said 100 years ago.

It’s all just the usual. The problem is people who don’t really understand what he’s saying fail to see how he’s just saying what is already the case. What James is trying to add is only a philosophical presumption painted over the top. One that cannot be proven any more than any other interpretation can.

If he kept his argument to just the philosophical, and did not try to prove it was better than current theory with just the philosophical no one would have any issue, currently all interpretations are equally valid in that they are all the same thing described differently. It’s the all science is wrong thing that grates. Theory must have testable predictions, James knows none of his will distinguish themselves above what already exists, and this bothers him. So what who cares. We’re all at the same impasse live with it. :smiley:

So you did not read the thread in which you are posting, nor do you have any conception of why that would be a problem…

Listen James, either stay something about the thread or don’t. But you ought not get personal, as this is a moderated Forum, as you well know.

Aww… Blobbie…

Listen, this thread, this forum, this is about something called “science” . :frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

Yeah I know. It’s bohoho-ring-hh. [size=85]TROLLING PEOPLE IS SO MUCH MORE FUN!!![/size]
But you know, this really isn’t the best place for that.

You know?

Well, maybe it’s okay if you hang around. Yelp some more blurps.

I don’t think that statement can reasonably be considered to be true. Nothing that James said has anything to do with Einstein.

Exactly: nothing to do with Einstein. James gave you fake physics.

Farsight is also offering you fake physics.

I am sorry that you only notice my comments on other posters. I am also sorry that you seem to take this as a sign that these comments are not true.

Probably the best answer to the question of the original post is to be found here: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh…79…591H

But a good overview is found, currently, on the relevant wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2#History

It is worth noting that there are good arguments to be made that Einstein’s original work is somewhat flawed and that later work provides more robust
support.

Fair enough, I have only read your replies to other posters, never an OP of yours. You don’t seem to write a lot of them.

It is true James did not answer the literal question, but he showed a way of arriving at the formula, which is certainly relevant. Even if it is, in your eyes, false.

You keep saying he and Farsight are fake-physicists. But be fair, all you’re doing is asserting that. I never see any maths or arguments to back up that claim.

Can you show me how James route to the formula is incorrect? Because it seems very legit to me.

Yeah in experiment if we used his equations the overall energy and effects within an area would be different from those that are achieved in an experimental situation because the relations between the energy and momentum of particles would not be produced by that simplified maths alone, what he has done is gloss over the actual situation. Although what he is saying is pretty much the same thing anyway, he just doesn’t have the equations in place to provide the results we actually see.

There’s no way we are going to get into the partial differential equations here though and have anyone understand them, suffice to say the rates of change in any given volume of any mass particles are equal to the partial equations we now use. Without them we have a very simple idea that James gives, and that is insufficient. It’s hence not really explaining anything more than a superficial idea of gravitational energy and its effect. It’s hence a simple face value equation that is derived from itself, it cannot be verified.

The fact is Einstein didn’t arrive at something out of the blue it took years of playing with calculus, years of adjusting formula to get something that would agree with the experiment. At face value all James is saying is that if this happens this will happen but there’s no maths there which would actually substantiate it or which we could verify. It’s Einstein when the idea first popped into his head, there’s nothing here that will provide experimental results. James needs to formulate something that could be verified quantitatively, he does not. No model = no experiment = no peer review = no science.