How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

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.

Yes. Logic is basic, first philosophy. Onto-logy is simply the logic of being.

The logic of self-valuing is also basic. What could exist which does not hold itself in existence by using that which it is as a standard of selection for its interactions?

Some beings try to hold themselves in existence by failing to select, by entirely being selected by other beings. Nietzsche had a name for that too: the will to nothingness.

A wave is a self-valuing as vector velocity, unable to select except in so far as it happens upon something that can value it, can use it (absorb the wave). The smallest particles are self-valuing as fundamental selection, me vs others. Waves just pass through each other, particles do not.

Then those small particles, “quarks”, select one another and form protons, and protons then select electrons and neutrons (which cannot exist unless they are selected by a proton, as neutrons on their own decay into protons anyway, lol), forming matter and eventually all of the elements. The value-selecting of even a simple element is deeply complex, irreducible even, which leads to the formation of an active will to power. Irreducible inner tension, a daemonic nature. From this, the universe and all life has come into being.

Well, it has become obvious that FC can no longer rationalize his pet project, perhaps you can put together a valid ontology for him. If you believe that you can, please have at it. I would rather him succeed through the intelligence of others than fail via the demonics of his environment.

I had asked FC a few very relevant questions (which he was too brain-dead to answer):

Can you perhaps help him out, because without those answers, he doesn’t actually have an ontology at all.

Unbelievably silly.

Obviously there is nothing “between” self valuings.
The whole point to an ontology is to figure out how phenomena relate to each other, how they are grounded in each other.

“AO” is just a cheap extremely silly trick of words “oh, uhhhh… well, it touches, so existence it called touchiness”. RM is “Touchiness ontology”.

Obviously one self valuing relates to another through… wait for it… valuing.

Euhr.

James, your stupidity is even more demonic than your dishonesty.
Your ontology will be forgotten as soon as you leave this green Earth.
Mine is already ruling the heads of quite a bunch of intelligent people, who are even so still struggling to really grasp the core that VO points to - as it points to the very depths of their own truthfulness, which most of them have not yet discovered the courage to access. VO draws out courage and sends those who lack it into convulsions, an careers them, brings out great hostility and insanity - like Trump, who is a good example of the logic.

Your “relevant” questions are too stupid to fathom. If an ontology holds a specific principle as the fundamental unit, what kind of idiot would ask what is between these units?

AO does not pertain to any real world object. It is a failed, completely infantile, debilitated form of hyper-simplification.
VO pertains to any observable object, and allows us to take that object as a fixed value and define and decipher the workings of everything around it.

VO allows us to take any entry point in reality and induce the character of its environment. AO allows us to do precisely nothing - except as James demonstrates, behave like a retard with Tourettes disease.

All these questions you asked are answered by physics. Unlike AO, VO works with physics, and with all exact sciences. VO in fact integrates all physics. It is the logic of both Relativity and QM, as Ive explained hundreds of times by now.

Apparently it is too powerful to be shared freely. It just doesn’t compute with people that they would be granted such a powerful tool without having earned it. And logically, VO itself is among the strictest of all self-valuings - it does not compute with falsehood, weakness, and certainly not with stupidity. But all these are the same things - the absence of integrity.

All comments from haters following this post predictable do not include any logical arguments, and a lot of personal insults. That is what you get for actually creating something. But its only right that bad people should not be capable of appreciating something truly, fundamentally and irreversibly good.

This is the last post these trolls will get the opportunity to warm themselves on - you see how quickly James got here. People in the future will be surprised that I remained here so long, in the least appreciative environment possible - the reasons will remain in the dark, except to those who have grasped Nietzsche.

Your jealousy makes you into such a deep hearted and egocentric liar.

The simple truth is that you don’t actually have an ontology at all. “The universe is made of self-valuing” does NOT comprise an ontology. It was only a beginning for you many years ago, from which you have made no actual progress.

You merely lust to be worshiped as a god. Earning any such worship never even crossed your mind.

James, why do you still bother with this megalomaniac nutcase?

(And FC, I’m not one of your “haters”. You aren’t worth such a deep emotion)

Sorry, but totally selfishness was driving “quite a bunch of intelligent people”, long, long before you were born. You haven’t added anything but the erroneous word “ontology”.

The “good guys” avoid condemnation at every reasonable opportunity, often long after the simple minded have long since chosen to hate. Some people actually grow up from being slapped. But then, some do not. It’s a calculated risk. :confused:

Energy is the ability to perform work but it is not only moving objects that have this ability but static
ones as well. Therefore the fact they are static makes zero difference. In that respect energy is mass