How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

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.

I am aware of it as a broken ontology. For something to be “curved”, there must be an original un-curved. If spacetime is what is to be curved, what is it that is un-curved?

Okay, I’ll buy that, as long as you don’t throw in an observer.

“Fabric” with its different meaning than “substance” has led to some bizarre theoretical physics proposals. A fabric is interwoven strains, “strings”. A substance of spacetime, is much more like an aether (a forbidden subject in physics).

It is pretty trivial with RM:AO (which you should have known long before now).

Just a quick reminder:
In the following video, there is an equation fully explained:
$$Ad = \frac{1-Ab}{1 + 4π(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)}$$
That “Ad” is “Affectance density” and is what modern physics would call “energy content of a mass particle”. It is actually even more precise than E=mc² (which is only an estimate).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]

James Maxwell was on the right track and if he had realized this, he would have seriously altered the course of physics and mathematics. Einstein’s later contributions might not have been relevant, but could still have possibly assisted in making such calculations simpler.

Then do enlighten us.

Exactly how is VO related to kinetic energy, 1/2 mv², and/or elastic potential energy, 1/2 kx², and/or gravitational potential energy, mgh, and/or mass energy content, mc²?

I appreciate your math, and I still understand AO -
VO is however not expressible in the sense of such pressurized systems.
It is an emergent system, so entirely fractalized.

Do you have the math of fractals at your command? I don’t, so that would be useful.

Are you sure that you want to get into complex numbers (half imaginary)? And I am pretty certain that the VO ontology would not be able to remain rational down on an infinitesimal scale using fractals. Fractals, although built of similar relations, require an originating assembly of dissimilar ontological constructs. That means that you have to separate out your “self-value” to be 3 separate entities; subject, valuing, and object. You never named any subject or object other than “self” (representing both).

Thats perfect, actually.
Cause there is no “self”, as I think you know, “self-valuing” refers to a valuing that indirectly values itself. (just in case)

So a self-valuing always consists of what in normal, “dead” language, has to be divided up in these three things, which can not exist or be conceived of separately. This separation of integrally related observations kills understanding of what is actually happening, reduces our capacity to cohere phenomena in an event.

No reply?

You weren’t bluffing, were you?

:laughing:

Without contrasts or dimensions, VO has nothing to do with fractals.

Everything in the universe is made of Yellow, so I want a fractal of Yellowness.

What is between one self-valuing and another? Nothingness? How much? How big? How dense? How does it move?

Could you answer my question?
I could answer yours afterwards if you manage.

“Yellow” is not that i can tell a logic. But good try.

I was going to answer your question concerning fractals, but you can’t get it through your head that a single proposed substance does not form an ontology and certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with fractals. You are just spewing egocentric stupidity these days, embarrassing yourself.

No, you weren’t. It had been sitting there for a long time waiting for you.
It is taking you 6 years not to get it through your head that VO describes a logic, not a substance.

You are behind, a century in physics, old friend.
And your insults have been the same for six years.

Obviously you don’t know anything about fractals, it seems you even have no idea what you are saying wit RM.

Perhaps you even think “affectance” is a substance.