How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

No but then that would be difficult have you ever tried quoting a post that was not about another poster, what you mean that isn’t an ad hominem. Since I am also Calrid page one of Eugene Morrows now extensive thread shows otherwise. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=172577: there are more, like this one, and the thread on special relativity about a stopped clock where I never used an ad hominem. that was an easy point to disprove. :slight_smile:

I’m traveling quite a bit this month. Hopefully I’ll have time in a few weeks (and remember) to go through the proof and James’ statements.

I understand that RM appears too basic and general to falsify. But if the maths are not verifiable, then what to make of this “Jack” module Saint has built? According to him (Saint, not Jack), his given definitions of reality and the logic of its propagation suffice to have particles emerge precisely as they do in the physical world. That is a claim to very good verification. Obviously it needs to seen before it can weigh in.

If you say that RM is simply stating the obvious, you agree that it is not illogical but at least good sense. If he used this logic to build a program that causes, without specifically being instructed to do so, the affectance field as defined in terms of differentiation of affect with a propagation limit, to form into concentrations analogous to protons, neutrons and electrons, then the logic would, even if childishly obvious, be valid. And I’d think very valuable.
IF.

The bottleneck seems to be the mathematics of infinits and infinitesimals.

It continues to amaze me how on some days (like this), you so precisely grasp things and on others, you leave me feeling that there is no hope at all. :sunglasses:

The “bottleneck” is merely a bottleneck in popular education, not in the actual RM logic. RM has it down very exactly, but you are right in that until you understand the mathematics of the infinities (“hyperreals”), the rest seems dubious. I touched on that briefly (avoiding the more complex math) in order to answer your question concerning “resistance”. The only resistance to the propagation speed of light, is the logic itself, not experimental data. Logic itself (in history more often referred to as “spirit”, although I disagree with that usage), merely “A=A” is what prevents light (or any affect) from traveling any faster than it does. There is no alternative for the maximum speed of any propagation. And there is no “resistance” either. I’m not certain that you caught that explanation or if more discussion is required.

Which is what leads to its philosophical conception.

Still looking forward to it.

Still looking forward to it.
I think we got some unresolved questions here.

Who ever wrote that erred. It is not true.

First E=mc² had nothing to do with relativity. Secondly, the equation does NOT state that mass and energy are made of the same stuff. The equation merely says that you can derive the amount of energy involved in a moving mass situation. It doesn’t even imply that mass and energy are the same thing.

That is because they ARE distinct things. Energy is not Mass. Energy is the ability to accomplish or affect. Mass is the ability to possess inertia (or for some, the ability to gravitate).

They are both made of affectance. But the equation does not have anything to do with what anything is made of.

Also false. Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have. It is not arbitrary.

Please re read. They were saying the opposite, they were stating a prior false belief.

It was not a belief … or not by anyone significant.

Energy is defined as the ability to perform work and when a system can no longer perform any more it will
have reached a state of maximum entropy. So there is an inverse relationship between energy and entropy

That is the same thing.

There is a lack of precision in that thought. Entropy involves the degree of order, not the degree of energy. An extremely high energy state, such as found in the center of stars and black holes, or even in the fields of dark-matter, also have an extremely high entropy level. Entropy and Energy, although often interrelated, are different concerns.

If you are trying to break the world record number of false statements, I believe you can rest easy.

There was a better example from a photo that phyllo had found, but since I can’t seem to find that one at the moment, this will have to do:

The paper mentioned in that Wiki article was NOT Einstein’s paper on Special Relativity. The title of the paper is:
[list]Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?[/list:u]
In that paper, he calculates the energy content of a body at rest as well as a body in motion. Realizing that “c” is a limit to the motion and comparing the two calculations, he concludes that the energy content of a mass is directly related to c².

This is the Paper:

He continues to conclude that mc² must represent the same quantity as the energy (which is different than the idea that mass is “made of energy”). And it has nothing to do with the Special Relativity issues of time dilation and length contraction. He calculated relative energy based upon the motion limit set by the speed of light (from Maxwell and Hertz).

Just because it mentions the speed of light (introduce by Maxwell) and relative motion (introduced by Galileo), doesn’t mean it is based upon Special Relativity (which is good since that would make it an invalid conclusion). This issue is more related to General Relativity, although not formulated at the time.

At the end of his Special Relativity paper,
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES[list]
By
A. EINSTEIN
June 30, 1905[/list:u]

He does mention the kinetic energy of an electron and its relation to its mass by using a momentum conversion in consideration of the speed limit of light:
$$W = \int eXdx=m\int_0^v β^3v dv$$
$$ = mc^2 \left{\frac{1}{1−v^2/c^2}−1\right}$$

Since with a constant force applied to a mass, the acceleration diminishes, it can be concluded that the mass increases (given former Newtonian ontology, F = ma). Again, this has nothing unique to do with Special Relativity other than it being mentioned in the paper (and as having been already determined). This increase in mass effect is directly from Maxwell’s speed of light limit, c, and is unrelated to observer relative references (aka “Special Relativity”).

James Clerk Maxwell was the true genius of that era. And his aether ontology was actually more correct, but merely incomplete due to misunderstandings of experimental data.

Yes, General Relativity is what I refer to when I say Relativity.

SR is just a surface-issue.

E=mc^2 contains the real issue, the relation between c and gravitation, a relation which can be seen as the backbone of the physical universe.

VO addresses, among many, many other issues, the supposed discrepancy between GR and QM, by showing they both comply with the same logical necessity. Namely, that all perspectives bend reality to themselves in order to exist - be they subatomic or black-hole sized.

Einstein presupposed a homogenous, “neat” and continuous fabric of space time. The fact is that that fabric is made entirely out of intensely contrasting situations, each of which resists the reality of the other.

This is why macro and micro will never relate directly.
And yet, why they will aways fall into similar patterns.

… between light and inertia or momentum.

“perspectives bend reality”?? Solipsism?
Don’t you have to have reality before there can be a perspective of it (not to mention the bending of it)?

There is a “substance of spacetime”, if you want to call it that. There is no “fabric” of spacetime.

You will have to do some seriously deep explaining in order to relate E=mc² to VO.
Frankly just relating energy, E, to VO could be quite an accomplishment.

Im sure you are aware of time space curvature.

No, they exist at the same time.
Both are logically required for each other.

Semantics.

As it would seem for RM.
But in fact with VO it is rather easy, since it is inferred from the laws of energy.

I already applied VO to Einsteins conundrum for example, which is a matter of energy distribution.
And it is instantly resolved by simply applying it. Once we apply sv logic to the matter of god and his dice (the fact that QM suggests ontological uncertainty which for a mathematician like Einstein was unacceptable), there simply isn’t an issue.
The bottom up structuring of time space happens by the same logic as the top down structuring, but not in the same physical matrix.

He, like most anyone still does, conflated the way logic of necessity causes things into being with how the laws of physics do that.
The former creates parallel paradigms, the latter only a lineair array.