How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

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). :sunglasses:

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.

I am trying to wrap my mind around the formula.
I have been trying to think it through in terms of potential to cause change. Like this:

A bit of matter consists of a lot of crunched activity.
This activity is the potential to cause change.
The potential to cause change has a maximum rate of causing change.
This maximum rate is tied tot he speed of light - light travels at the maximum rate of change-of-potential.
Bit sof matter like an electron are cases of potential to cause change constantly affecting itself. What it exerts, it receives of itself. it stays the same while ‘self-causing’ it’s activity, which is electromagentism.
C is enclosed in the electron as E.

In order to have this potential be absorbed by a greater whole, a potential corresponding to the max rate of change has to be exerted on the electron to ‘‘neutralize’’ it - to cause its potential to merge with something else.
So the C embedded in the electron is multiplied by the potential required to change its behavior.
The potential of the electron is translated into mass by enclosing that potential by matching it.

I can’t get this into words properly. I hope I make enough sense so as for someone to be able to point out where I’m going wrong.

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;

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.

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?