How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

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.

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.