How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

[Helandhighwater]

@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?

[Hobbes Choice]

@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.

[Helandhighwater]

@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.

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

[Hobbes Choice]

@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.

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.

[James S Saint]

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 )... 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.

[Hobbes Choice]

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?

[James S Saint]

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

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

[PhysBang]

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

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?

[James S Saint]

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).

[Jakob]

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.

[Hobbes Choice]

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.

[Jakob]

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:

When you first asked this question, about a year and half ago, I was still laboring under the theory that a particle was a “tumbling bundle” of EM wave. RM taught me a lot since then. Today, I understand what is really going on.

What we call physics today has a bit of a corrupted ontology causing quite a bit of confusion, so let me try to explain this in terms of RM translated to the more loosely defined common physics terms.

Energy by concept is the ability to cause change or to affect. “Potential energy” in RM is the Potential-to-Affect, PtA. But the changing of that potential is itself a form of energy referred to as “Affectance” which is related to “radiant energy” and “mass”. That changing takes place over time and distance. A particle and its mass is formed merely due to the clustering of that propagation of changing, the affectance, not of the PtA itself.

So the energy associated with a particle is the amount of affectance (the changing) that has clustered around a location.

The affectance clusters or congests in a location merely due to a maximum rate of change that gets challenged by the random changing going on at and very near the location. As small changes add to each other, they end up having to delay their propagation simply because potential can’t change as fast as they would have had it change such as to continue it velocity. As delays occur, those delays create more delays because the changing wasn’t getting out of the way of new changes being introduced, thus the particle grows.



Due to the 3D universe, there is a fixed volume wherein the amount of delaying compared to the amount of new encounters becomes balanced and the growth stops. Thus a particle is formed with a fixed size. A particle doesn’t have an actual finite border, but at a specific radius, the amount of recursive delaying drops off quickly. The additional delaying still occurring in much less density outside that radius is referred to as the mass field or gravity field. The outer mass field also causes delays, but not significant enough to be considered as a part of the particle, as expressed in this piece concerning the movement of a particle;

Firstly, "force" is an after-effect, an aberrant effect that does not actually exist except via perception. In reality, particles "migrate" due to aggregation and dissemination of their internal affectance ("energy"). There is nothing actually pushing or pulling them any in direction. They simply have cause to grow toward one direction and shrink from the other direction. They are always reforming their constituents, their "affectance" and are actually only the center of the congestion involved. It is much like a crowd of people shifting while the individual people are coming and going from the scene. The "particle" is merely the congestion, not the people themselves. And thus when the center of congestion shifts, it is perceived that the "particle" has shifted, when in reality, merely more people got involved on one side as others left the other side.

Asking how much energy is within a particle is like asking how many people are within that crowd. But realize that the number of people within the defined crowd area is going to be directly dependent upon how fast those people walk around. We could say that at the center, they get delayed to the point of having to temporarily stop regardless of how fast they normally walk. As the people shift closer to the edge of the crowd, they can return to their normal walking speed. So the “propagation speed” of the people decelerates and then accelerates back to normal. Thus the “mass” of the crowd is determined by the amount of delay in their propagation speed. And the number of them within that mass is the amount of potential energy within that massing of them.

I don’t think that I can address that equation, E=mc^2, without going through more detail concerning the exact relationship between the ontological components that make up RM and physics.

The potential to cause change can be distributed over a distance but it cannot be a local potential to cause change if the potential is evenly distributed because if all points have the exact same potential to affect each other, none of them can actually be affect. Thus their true potential would be zero. The potential must vary from point to point else there is no means to cause actual change. And as such changing occurs, the location of the changing must shift or “the changing must propagate”. When it propagates, it is referred to as “radiant energy” and propagates at the “speed of light”.

The propagation speed within “free space” is the same regardless of the amount of potential that is changing, regardless of the amount of “radiant energy”. Thus if the amount of radiant energy is to be different at any time, it is only the amount of potential that can vary such as to cause any bit of radiant energy from being any more or less than any other. Thus when analyzing how much “energy” is within a bundle of radiant energy, it is the total summed up potential energy that is being measured.



The equation in question involves the entities known at the time; “energy”, “mass”, and “propagation speed, c”. Thus to explain that equation, RM concepts have to be translated so as to reflect those concerns. And the basic concern involves how much radiant energy is being held within a confident space.

Energy = Affectance = changing of the PtA = PtA/t
Radiant Energy = propagating PtA/t = RptA
Propagation Speed = distance/time = c
Mass = radiant energy within a volume

The affectance, PtA/t, is the amount of radiant energy, RPtA, within a given amount of distance, RPtA/d.

Thus the amount of RPtA within a given distance, RptA/d, is the amount of changing PtA, PtA/t, divided by speed that it traverses that distance; time/distance, t/d, “1/c”.

PtA/t = RPtA/d * d/t
RPtA/d = PtA/t * t/d = PtA/t /c
RPtA/d = PtA/t * t/d
RPtA/d = PtA/t / c

The total amount of RPtA/d within a given distance is the amount PtA/t divided by the speed of propagation, c. Or the amount of radiant energy within a given distance is the amount of affectance divided by c.

Radiant energy / d = Potential energy / c

What is called “mass” in physics is a reflection of the amount of delay going on that doesn’t exist in free flow radiance. And it is from such delays that inertia is created. So obviously there is a connection between the mass and the energy within because the measure of the mass is the amount of energy being delayed.

In RM, the term “mass” doesn’t exist but is strongly related to inertia or the reluctance to change and the delay of affectance due to the maximum rate of change. The maximum rate of change is the anentropic element that not only causes the delays that create inertia and the particle to form, but also directly causes the propagation speed of the affectance or “speed of light”.

This creates the situation wherein the propagation speed plays upon itself such as to cause a delay upon itself. As PtA changes propagate into each other, they add such as to create a proposed rate of change that exceeds the maximum possible and thus propagation rate slows to allow more time for the changing to occur. Such slowing is what begins the formation of a particle and its mass.

Thus to calculate the mass, one must know that amount of radiant energy within a given volume. When that radiant energy gets high enough, delays come about that in turn create more delays that in turn confines more of the radiant energy within the same amount of space. The radiant energy becomes confined.

The amount of radiance getting trapped is a function of the inverse of the propagation speed in that if the propagation speed were allowed to increase, the maximum rate of change would have to have increased and thus less delays would occur. And the amount of radiant energy within the same space would also decrease, RPtA/d. Thus the amount of delaying is a function of the inverse square of the propagation speed due to propagation speed causing the propagation to slow. And if the propagation speed only slightly increased, the amount of delay and thus the amount of mass, would drastically be reduced.

Mass = RPtA/d / c
Mass = (PtA/t /c) /c
Mass = Affectance / c^2

Or as more commonly know;

Affectance = Mass * c^2
Energy = mc^2

But now realize that the equation itself was not precise and the translation between the definitionally exact measurements in RM to those of observational physics has not been created. So this explanation has been purely conceptual in intent.

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.

[Hobbes Choice]

[...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!

[Helandhighwater]

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.

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.

What is called “mass” in physics is a reflection of the amount of delay going on that doesn’t exist in free flow radiance. And it is from such delays that inertia is created. So obviously there is a connection between the mass and the energy within because the measure of the mass is the amount of energy being delayed.

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.

[Jakob]

[...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!

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....

[Hobbes Choice]

[...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!

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.

[Jakob]

Aww... Blobbie...

Listen, this thread, this forum, this is about something called "science" .

Yeah I know. It's bohoho-ring-hh. TROLLING PEOPLE IS SO MUCH MORE FUN!!!
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.

[PhysBang]

James has gone through great lengths actually answering the OP's question.

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

Here's just one outtake:

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

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.

Farsight is also offering you fake physics.

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.

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: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H

But a good overview is found, currently, on the relevant wikipedia page: http://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.

[Jakob]

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.

[Helandhighwater]

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.

[Helandhighwater]

HAHW literally never says anything that isn't about another poster

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.

[PhysBang]

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.

[Jakob]

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.

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.

[James S Saint]

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 infinities 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.

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.

[Fixed Cross]

What exactly is electrical charge?

It's a "standing electromagnetic field variation" with a particular disposition. The photon or electromagnetic wave is an electromagnetic field variation that goes past you at c. The field variation is sinusoidal, with a positive followed by a negative. If you fix this so that it's going round and round in a stable configuration where the negative field variation is on the outside, what you've got is a negatively charged particle.

Wow, that's a great explanation. From my perspective very useful, at least. If this means that we could (if we were to distinguish categories "force" and "form") classify electrical charge in the category of form.

Which is what leads to its philosophical conception.