How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Incredibly interesting, the fog is lifting somewhat. I’m not quite there yet - you’ll have to help me out a bit more.

I am having trouble picturing propagating changing potential to affect.
Is not the changing of potential itself a propagating of sorts?

so what exactly are you saying energy is james?

or perhaps i should ask what is it that is “changing”?

What is changing is the ability to change the ability to change. Nothing else exists at all.
And “energy” is that ability to change actually changing in the two forms of “potential to actually change” and “actual changing”, “potential energy” and “kinetic energy” or “PtA” and “Affectance”.

Energy can be expressed as the potential to cause change plus all of its time derivatives;

PtA
dPtA/dt
dPtA/dt^2
dPtA/dt^3
.
.
.

PtA is equivalent to “electric potential” in physics.

That question takes a lot of careful conceptual communication to answer. Let me give it a shot.

If we begin with the idea that every point in space has a potential to affect the potential next to it, we have to conclude that since there is nothing stopping it from doing so, such affecting will immediately take place and thus every point in space will immediately begin changing as it begins changing the points around it. Again, what is changing is only each point’s ability to change the other points. That is the fundamental makeup of physical reality.

Propagation merely refers to the chain of affects as point A affect point B which then affects point C which then affects point D and so on much like the domino effect.

That is the simple part. But logic dictate that there is more complexity involved because as each point affects the next, it is using up the amount of potential to cause that affect merely by actually causing it and thus, in effect, as any potential gives to another, that other is taking from the first.

This is like a rich man giving his money to a poor man. It is said that the wealth is passing to the poor man. But it is necessarily also true that the poorness is passing to the rich man. Thus for every direction of increasing affect, there must be a reverse direction decreasing of affect (which happens to be why energy is necessarily and always conserved).

And what gets complex is the fact that such increasing and decreasing of each PtA at each point causes each of those points to pass the affect along to the next point in line - propagation. And such is always happening in all directions at the same time.

If we take the concept of varied potentials to affect, PtA, distributed across a small line, we have to conclude that propagation will occur in both directions along that line.

But as that propagating takes place, each point is being affected from both sides by what was coming toward it from its left and also what was coming toward it from its right. Thus the point itself has the addition of both propagating affects.

That was still the easy part. What gets fun is realizing that as each wave of forward affecting propagates, it includes both increasing PtA affects as well as decreasing PtA affects traveling in the same direction at the same speed. And that is happening in both directions.

In the above pictorial, the red and blue segments indicate the decreasing and increasing affects, respectively. But note that there is increasing headed in both directions as well as decreasing in both directions. As those affects cross at each point, they add to the points PtA. Thus if both were increasing, that point increases more. If one was increasing and the other was decreasing, that point has the result of the addition of the increasing minus the decreasing and thus might not change much at all. But even if a point does not change in its total PtA, the propagation does not stop (it takes a lot more explanation to go into why it doesn’t).

So what you see as the green line in the pictorial is the actual result of propagating affects. It is a line that would appear to be rapidly and turbulently swaying up and down with no apparent pattern. That is what causes the “springiness of space” noted by physicists 100 years ago. That line represents the true and real state that all space is actually always in, always has been in, and always will be in. That fact can never change.

Modern quantum physics ontology basically agrees with the exception that they claim that such turbulence is due to magnetic bubbles popping into and out of reality on a Plank level, without cause. RM doesn’t accept causeless events as logically coherent.

RM’s Affectance Ontology vs Quantum Physics Ontology
RM: The EM turbulence of space is due to a maximum change rate causing a finite propagation speed of EM waves
QM: The EM turbulence of space is due to uncaused magnetic bubbles randomly popping in and out of reality.

QM gains statistical accuracy merely because they don’t need to know why things are happening in order to measure them. RM merely gives logically coherent explanation as to Why they see what they see and affords far more precise predictive potential.

Go ahead and predict something.

but in order for there to be change there must be a thing that changes so my question is what is that thing that is energy/change

You are going to make another snide comment.
What would QM predict about that?

For the 3rd time, that “thing” is Potential-to-Affect or in physics, “Electric Potential”.
If you have never thought about such things before, it takes a little getting used to. People had trouble accepting the notion of an invisible “gravity field” too… then the magic “magnetic field”, then the “electric field”.

For anything to be said to have existence, it must have the potential to affect something; Existence Meaningfully Defined. The most fundamental “thing” for it to be affecting is that potential. Thus on the most fundamental level of existence is merely the potential to affect the potential to affect. From the actual affecting of the potential, all forms of physical existence noted by physics logically arise.

I did understand the theory of this part, still I appreciate the clarification.
What I still wonder about is the foton. I can see how things sort of pop into existence as reaching a threshold of affectance, but this seems to be a local concern - what about the photon? What is the mechanism of radiant propagating potential to affect?

Another question: is there a minimum, a limit to the quantum of affectance, or units with the potential to affect? Because if it is infinitely small, how can we distinguish it from zero?

You advertized that RM ‘affords far more precise predictive potential’ than QM.

Sounds like you should be able to calculate the sizes of particles or at least the ratio. Yes?

Predict some fundamental constant? Particles resulting from collision of subatomic particles? Photoelectric effect?

I leave it up to you to decide what you want to show.

I won’t make a snide comment if you show some results. Not gonna give you a free ride either.

but a potential is not a thing that is it is a thing that is yet to be…

regardless what is this potential made out of?

I’m unclear as to what you are asking. A photon is merely a “bunch” of noisy affectance that happens to be all traveling in the same direction. The entire bunch gets reflected or absorbed due to impedance matching issues. It gets produced as a bunch due to the mechanism involved in its production. The bunch doesn’t maintain any particular shape other than what it had when it was produced and that shape can be modified. Its “mechanism for propagation” is the same as any much smaller affectance wave with the exception that as a “bunch”, it can evolve such as to change direction, “bend”. Other than that, I don’t know what to say or question about it.

Absolutely not. And “we” can’t distinguish an infinitesimal from zero. Fortunately we don’t have to because it and its surroundings know that it is there already and they respond accordingly. Affectance doesn’t come in particular sizes as QM would have it. Affectance waves can be any size until they start interfering with each other. At that point more interesting things begin to happen; bunching, forming particles, forming gravitation,…

The units of measure in RM are different than the metric system and so far there is no conversion, partly because the ontological entities are slightly different. RM entities are 100% exact and thus all calculations involving those entities are 100% exact. Physics began with observed phenomena and then tried to measure relations relative to prior chosen units of measure. That led to an oddity of both entities as well as units of measure. RM defines conceptual entities and the units based on the pure conceptual definitions of the entities involved without having to observe a “thing” and try to measure it, and then calculates from there.

You have had plenty of time to learn what it is that I am talking about such as to be a constructive adversary. You chose to remain ignorant on the topic and merely take potshots when you see opportunity. In your eyes, this is one of those, like the typical atheist declaring that there is no God when he doesn’t even know what a God is.

“Show me how you’re so great and cool, walk across my swimming pool.”

What RM does most is give logically based coherent understanding of what is already observed, unlike quantum magic. RM is about WHY things are they way they are. But in so doing a few small things come to light that are slightly different than physics currently believes. Just to name a few;

  1. Relativity is relative (as already displayed in the Stopped Clock Paradox)
  2. In high energy fields, all particles will contain more mass
  3. ALL particles and their properties can be fully explained with a single field concept - Affectance.
  4. Gravity and Magnetism are aberrant effects of randomized distributed EM and accelerating potential, respectively.
  5. There are no attractive or repulsive forces per se, particles migrate.
  6. There is no “strong force” nor “weak force” as these are merely aberrant effects involving impedance matching and mismatching
  7. The Double-Slit experiment can be explained and proven by RM and offers A Double-Slit Hypothesis for falsification testing.
    8.) The definition of Time as “the relative measure of change”.
  8. Understanding for the appearance of a Big Bang without need of magical events.
  9. Understanding of “dark matter”.
  10. There is a Maximum Rate of Change inherent in the universe, MRC, responsible for propagation speed and particle formation.
  11. the universe had no beginning nor can it have an end.

But now, I have a question for you;
What the fuck have You done lately?

A “potential” is a situation (like a glass sitting on the edge of a table without sufficient balance to remain there. The glass “has the potential to fall”). To change a potential requires only a change in the situation.

Each point within a situation is a part of the situation and thus a part of the potential of the entire situation as well as being, with its immediate surroundings, a situation in itself. The situation is one wherein balance cannot be achieved wherein the situation would not dictate that it become different. Thus it eternally changes = “the physical universe”.

It is “the situation OF the situation” being logically unstable. The situation cannot be what it is and remain what it is. Thus it changes, forming time and substance. The universe is merely “the substance of a changing situation” = Affectance.

This is an admission that RM ‘results’ can’t be compared to observations since the is no conversion between real world measurements and RM units.

That’s what Aristotle was doing. But that approach had to be abandoned because the logic did not in fact match observations.

You’re a clever man and you can certainly weave together a plausible explanation for how and why things might be. How closely does the explanation match the world? If it matches well, then it is a truth or a useful fiction. If it doesn’t match, then it is a waste of time or an entertaining fiction.

The measurements can’t be - yet.
The Logic can be.
But just as it takes someone knowing math to verify math, it takes someone knowing logic to verify logic.

Aristotle made “plausible assumptions” for his axioms.
RM makes no assumptions.

That is exactly my point. I have stated that many times. Anyone can build any kind of coherent ontology. The proof is in the final pudding.
So far, RM matches every single observation of modern physics.
Modern physics theories are what RM disagrees with, not the observations.
And in addition, RM answers the mysteries that modern physics claims to not be able to answer.

But then this “affectance” is governed by time… so what is time?

Well if we are going to be accurate he really kinda plagiarised other theorists who had already said the same thing but not necessarily in strictly mathematical terms or in a form that was totally derivable from experimental concerns: from Newton who said that light was energy and equivalent hence to all mass objects, paraphrasing there: to Boltzman and others the equation had already been rigidly framed in both maths and argument, the only difference is Einstein clearly showed it in a testable system. However the equation E=mc^2 has been written at least a half dozen times from the 18th to 19th century although not in the exact same terms, but close enough as to make no appreciable difference.

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”

Albert Einstein.

Time is merely the measure of how much change has occurred relative to some other change. That is why time seems relative. All measurements are relative.

Would you happen to have references sources for any of that?

I do but since I am about to be permanently banned by a fucktard I fail to seen the need to supply them, so I wont. Look them up for yourself if you can be bothered.

Einstein used his imagination. He looked at a sunbeam and asked what it would be like to travel on the wave.

Joules, metres and seconds is a completely circular argument.

Popped my head back in, and then remembered why I so rarely do. This thread is a travesty.

Phyllo, you called out James Saint in exactly the right way. Well done. Hopefully everyone understands enough of science to know that him failing to generate a prediction validated by experiement means he’s full of shit.

PhysBang, you seem like you are both rational and actually have some education. You poor bastard, what are you doing at ILP? I’m in math; I mostly work in algebraic topology and quantum field theory. PM me if you like.

The rest of you either seem corrupt and/or delusional (Saint), or else good-natured but lacking sufficient training in science to know that the corrupt ones are full of shit.

Here are some helpful hints:

  1. Real scientists talk a lot more like PhysBang, and a lot less like anyone else on this thread.
  2. If someone claims to have a theory that supercedes the best of the modern theories, he is a crackpot. If he tells you this theory without using a lot of complicated math, he’s a stupid crackpot.
  3. If someone says he has sources for his claim, but refuses to produce them for any reason whatsoever, he is lying.
  4. If the science in question is physics and someone says “you can loosely think of a photon as [simple idea X]”, that might be fine. If that person says “a photon IS just [simple idea X]”, he is a crackpot.
  5. If you actually want to ask a question about science, and you can’t tell the real thing from the con artists, NEVER ASK IN A PHILOSOPHY FORUM. This is because even professional philosophers don’t know a damn thing about science, and armchair philosophers are much, much worse. For physics, ask here instead: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask
  6. If you want to understand anything about physics in the 20th century or beyond, you need to know math. Sure, E=mc^2 has some vague intuition behind it, but if you really want to know why, you have to walk through the mathematical derivation. This is why physics is considered a hard subject – if you want to know why something is true, you have to follow the math. If someone says they can sell you a quick intuition, at best it’s something that’s vaguely related, but more likely, it’s complete bullshit.

Finally, the wikipedia article on E=mc^2 is quite interesting, and clears up the one or two correct things said in this thread, together with the writhing mass of bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#The_first_derivation_by_Einstein_.281905.29