How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

No problem. The former is what they call dark matter. It has a higher-than-average energy density, and that energy has a mass-equivalence and a gravitational affect. A gravitational field does too, because it’'s a density gradient.

If it was both high and low balancing each other out, there would be no net movement of energy/momentum. Take the derivative of a smooth-curved “high” of electromagnetic potential A for the typical electromagnetic sine wave.

OK. The high density region could be a region closer to the surface of the earth than the low density region.

There’s nothing much to say. A pulse traverses a rubber sheet that varies in density from one region to another. It might change speed and profile, but it keeps on going.

The gradient you’re talking about sounds like a gravitational gradient, which is different to electromagnetism and charge. I’d say two particles “charge” towards one another when they have opposite chiral spin. Think frame-dragging, and two opposite whirlpools being attracted to one another.

They haven’t merged their densities, the escaping photons are “pulses” of higher density zipping away at the speed of light. They’ve just lost their opposite chiral rotations, which cancelled each other out.

I don’t hold with that. They have opposite chiral spins and are attracted to one another, but they’re different too - there’s no lock-and-key annihilation going on.

Sorry James, I can’t see this.

I’d say the front of the wave is positive, the back is negative.

No, inertia and mass are what you’d call the wave momentum if it had no aggregate motion with respect to you. Like when it’s going round and round as an electron. A steeper wave has more momentum, and if it’s going round and round it exhibits more inertia/mass.

Not quite. You create charge when you create mass. And antiprotons are negatively charged. Annihilate one with a proton and you get photons again.

Yes, that’s it. That’s why the electron and proton don’t annihilate.

Yes.

It’s better to call it the weak interaction. Let’s come back to it another day.

Positronium isn’t stable, but antihydrogen is. It’s just tricky to stop it wandering off, whereupon the positron annihilates with an electron and the antiproton annihilates with a proton. By the way, positronium is neither matter nor antimatter, it’s a combination of both, and is said to be like light hydrogen, see cs.cdu.edu.au/homepages/jmit … psatom.htm.

You’re thinking about this the wrong way James. An electron is attracted to a positron. It’s also attracted to a proton. We call the electron matter. We call the positron antimatter. But we call the proton matter too. It isn’t. It’s antimatter.

Everyone who knows about this stuff has shown that you are wrong about this: dark matter cannot simply be accounted for by a higher than average mass-energy density; the math doesn’t work. You have been asked to try to defend your position by performing a basic calculation of galaxy rotation based on your theory, but you have been unable to do so. This is why your positions are unsupported fantasy.

Can you back this up using the measurements of the properties of these different particles? Can you demonstrate that the proton is made up of antiquarks, as opposed to the quarks that it is supposed to be composed of?

Although I have trouble tracking what they are calling this or that, You might be right. But there are other things going on.

Emm… the high and low peaks of a wave aren’t in the same location. The motion comes from them having a vector due to the gradient and then each is “chasing” the other.

It doesn’t have to be close to an actual massive object, but yeah it could be.

But the “rubber sheet” analogy implies a tensile and tension that doesn’t actually exist. Nothing is really being stretched (although I realize that is your paradigm ).

Opposite spinning whirls don’t attract each other any more than identical spinning whirls. Neither would repel away from either. The opposites would merge and the identicals would destroy each other. Gravitation and electric charge are merely different aberrant effects or versions of the same thing. Except with gravitation, you can have no opposite, no negative gravitation and the effect we call charge is a much stronger affect.

Are you trying to say that a photon has mass?

Try to explain how a chiral spin would cause attraction and repulsion (not merely that it does, but how/why).

If that were the case, what would you call the dip that goes below zero relative to the surroundings?

The change rate is what causes that inertia that causes the momentum once in motion and the going round and round. The steeper wave has higher inertia and thus when moving (which it always must be) it is what we call momentum.

So every mass is charged? I don’t think so.

Not unless you define “stable” as a few microseconds. They have assumed that IF it would stay away from other matter, it would be stable. I am telling you that they are wrong about that. But you choose for yourself.

Emm… ??
A proton is antimatter?!?
Where did that come from?

You’re missing something there. Think about two boxes. Box 1 is full of electromagnetic waves, box 2 is empty. The region of space called box 1 has a higher energy density than the region of space called box 2. Let the electromagnetic waves out of box 1 and catch them in box 2. Now the region of space called box 2 has a higher energy density than the region of space called box 1. So the electromagnetic waves themselves are “regions of higher energy density”. Just higher, not higher and lower netting off to the average.

It is only an analogy, but don’t forget that those waves do travel. The tension is the result of the strong force. That’s what people say is fundamental, and what keeps quarks together in a proton, but they don’t mention what happens to it in low-energy proton-antiproton annhilation. Nor do they tell you what happened to the “fundamental” quarks:

They do. You can see this with Falaco solitons. Try it. Alternatively have a look at this and see the bit that says In other words, two bound vortices of opposite circulation attract each other with a force equal to [expression] that must be counterbalanced by an opposite external force to maintain their separation".

The opposites attract and merge and destroy one another, the identicals repel. Aim one Falaco soliton straight at the other face-on, and they annihilate.

They’re also different in that gravity is the result of a non-uniform energy density whilst electric charge is associated with magnetic “rot” which is short for rotor and is also known as curl. Gravitomagnetism is something of a mixture between the two, see this NASA article which mentions a vortex.

No. Taking mass as rest mass, photons move at the speed of light, you can’t make them go faster or slower, they aren’t at rest, so mass doesn’t apply. But trap a photon in a mirror-box, and it adds mass to that system. The photon is rattling around at c, but in aggregate it’s no longer moving at c in relation to you. It’s effectively at rest, even though it isn’t actually at rest. Now its momentum is expressed as inertia. Momentum is what you feel when you try to stop something moving. Inertia is something you feel when you try to start something moving. They’re just two ways of looking at change in motion.

See above. In gravitomagnetism there’s “frame dragging”, It’s there in electromagnetism too. The space is distorted, “swirled”, in an inhomogeneous fashion, affecting the path of things in it. Like rotating things. They don’t rotate in situ, they move.

A hole I suppose. There isn’t anything there, just something that’s everywhere else but there. People talk about phonons and holes, but I know of no actual subatomic particles like this.

If you can’t make something go faster or slower, inertia doesn’t apply. When it’s going round and round it’s not moving in aggregate with respect to you, so it’s like it’s not moving, hence the momentum looks like inertia - you can make this wave going round and round move laterally. You can make it move faster, and then you can make it move slower.

It’s true. See Neutron magnetic moment and pay attention to this: It was of particular interest, as magnetic moments are created by the movement of electric charges. The neutron has charge, it’s just that it has both positive and negative charge. It isn’t a charged particle in the usual sense of the word, because it has no net charge, but it does have charge.

Antiprotons are stable, so are positrons. Ditto for antihydrogen. It’s been trapped for a 1000 seconds. Look it up.

Yes. I’m deadly serious about that. The electron is matter. It’s attracted to a positron, which is antimatter. It’s attracted to a proton too. Think about it.

My cache of silver bullets. Use it well.

A “higher energy density” NOT necessarily a higher affectance density. Box 2 might have a higher uniform potential to affect the universe than box 1. Imagine that box 2 is highly charged but has no waves, whereas box 1 has waves, but very little charge. The energy is the measure of ability to change something else. The local variation in box 1 can change their immediate surroundings. But the higher uniform charge in box 2 can even more greatly affect a distant surrounding. Local energy is not the same as distant energy.

Nope, the “strong force” is a mythical aberration… sorry (just like the “weak force”. As you said, it is an “interaction result”, not a actual force).

In a pool that has a gravitation pull transverse to the spin, the whirlpools will “fall” into each other. But they are FALLING due to gravity. They are NOT the gravity itself. If you equate their spin to charge, then you are saying that a spinning heavy mass is a higher charge than a lower mass spinning in the opposite direction. If that were the case, we would have to include the spin of planets in calculating the gravitation attraction. A spinning ball would fall at a different rate than a ball spinning in the opposite direction.

Yet you equate mass with “higher energy”. You can’t have it both ways.
Either a higher energy item has higher mass because of its higher energy, or mass is not merely an issue of higher energy.
Make up your mind.
(and please stop presuming that I don’t know the difference between inertia and momentum)

Oh for heaven’s sake. You are merely redefining the language.
“Matter” means “the hard stuff”.
They define “anti-matter” as the hard stuff of the opposite from the normal hard stuff.

An electron has a wave nature, you can diffract electrons. So box 2 might be chock full of electrons, and highly charged. But it would also be chock full of waves.

Carve cubes of “empty” space out at different gravitational potentials to lose the waves but keep the different densities. If all all densities are the same everywhere, there is no affect. Your affectance sounds like available energy.

An electron has a wave nature, you can diffract electrons. So box 2 might be chock full of electrons, and highly charged. But it would also be chock full of waves.

So are the electrostatic and magnetic forces, along with gravity.

Their attraction isn’t due to gravity. Try those Falaco solitons, they move sideways.

Agreed.

Whoa. The amount of energy spinning doesn’t equate to the amount of charge, it equates to the amount of mass. The charge is topological. You’ve got light going round and round, but light goes in straight lines. So that means the space curves all the way round. Not part of the way or a bit more than all the way. Hence unit charge. The difference between positive and negative is the difference in chirality.

It would have a higher “gravitomagnetic charge”, which is something different. A pale insipid ersatz version of the real thing.

Take a sphere of some given mass. Make it spin real fast, and you’ve added energy to that system. You’ve increased its mass. But it’s a very small effect unless you spin things very fast. And then they break up before you can spin them fast enough.

Two bodies with different masses fall at the same rate.

Mass is rest mass, and rest mass is rest energy, only it’s only at rest in aggregate. The more energy you’ve got going round and round in there, the bigger the mass. But regardless of how much energy/momentum a photon conveys in some straight line through space, mass doesn’t apply because it isn’t at rest.

Come on James, get your thinking cap on, don’t just accept some humpty-dumpty definition that leads to mystery and wooo! Is positronium matter or antimatter? And if it’s described as being like “light” hydrogen, where does that leave hydrogen?

I wasn’t referring to box 2 having electrons within, merely a higher charge field (E-field) than distant areas and higher than box 1.

Check out the Aharonov-Bohm effect James, and the bit that says: In fact Richard Feynman complained [citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of E and B, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the A field instead, as this would be more fundamental. Think A for affect.

This is from the other thread, but it’s important.

I agree with that. If you’re looking for a paradigm, here’s one: space and energy are the same thing. So imagine your two boxes are cubes in a cubic lattice marking out space so you can see what’s going on. If box 1 has a higher A-field than box 2, it’s bigger than box 2. So the lattice lines between them are curved. This curved region is an electromagnetic field. It’s the effect, not the cause. The A field is the cause. It’s more fundamental.

Quite. If you walk into box 1, you’re affected too, along with all your measuring devices. You can’t tell that it’s bigger. You thus think all the boxes are the same size, and that box 1 has the higher energy density. Note though that this simple static picture lacks the dynamical action of the world we live in. An electromagnetic wave or photon is like a pulse in the lattice passing you by. A high-energy photon is a fast short pulse, a low-energy photon is a slow long pulse. Reduce the energy and it’s slower and longer, hence bigger.

Oh geez…
The “A-field” is merely the potential to have a magnetic flux.
Feynman merely wanted to think in terms of the real field = the magic field (magnetic field). Rather appropriate for the Ashkenazi. {{Pewthy, spit on the E-field.}}

Quite seriously not boasting, my Affectance field is more fundamental and creates all of the fields, A,B,E, and G along with all of their fluxes. And then it continues into economics, sociology, psychology, health, and just about everything Man has ever done.

You’re just not getting it. Your mind seems to be half in and half out-of-the-box.

Given that you cannot follow the mathematics of special relativity, this is incredibly doubtful. Do you have any demonstration? Perhaps you should start another thread.

You mean considering that YOU can’t follow the math.
Go solve the paradox since you seem to think that everyone is beneath you.
And do you EVER say ANYthing that isn’t merely ad hom?

Well, I have the graduate course credits to prove to myself and the university that gave me my degree that say otherwise.

And you have the crazy idea that somehow people have, for over 100 years, missed a simple mathematical mistake in special relativity. Since many people have shown you where you went wrong, to the point of finally banning you for pigheadedness on other boards, we can all consider your “paradox” solved.

It is not an ad hominem to point out that you are incompetent at the relevant science and that this makes us ask you to actually demonstrate your claims with more evidence.

Not the magnetic potential A, the Electromagnetic four-potential A[size=85]α[/size]. It should be a superscript alpha.

That’s PhysBang talk. Don’t do it. And don’t feed the troll.

I would never say that you are half-in the box.

Do I need to say something here?

I was being sarcastic/ironic about our BOX analogy… geeez.

Was the nuclear bomb inferred from this equation?

Not really. The equation does tell you that there’s an awful lot of energy tied up in even a small amount of matter, but the atom bomb really came out of an understanding of atoms and binding energy. Have a read of this Einstein Online article for details.

Thanks.