```Date: Feb 2, 2013 1:23 AM
Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
Subject: Chapt15.42 Deriving E=mcc purely from the Maxwell Equations; energy<br> and mass are dualities not equivalencies #1196 New Physics #1316 ATOM<br> TOTALITY 5th ed

Sorry, I need another chapter.Chapt15.42 Deriving E=mcc purely from the Maxwell Equations; energyand mass are dualities not equivalenciesAlright, I need a chapter on how the Maxwell Equations derives E =mc^2, which I like better writing as E = mccI like that because in the analysis we consider the maximum possiblemomentum of a mass m as being P = mc since there is no speed greaterthan c.So that we ask the relativistic question of the Maxwell Equations thatcommonplace energy of kinetic energy isE = 1/2 mvvand so, what is the maximum possible energy since the speed of lightis maximum speed and it is a constant.Would we have E = 1/2mcc ?The answer is no, for the maximum would be mccnot 1/2mcc.In the literature there are many logical arguments that derive E =mcc, except they get hung up on not applying relativistic MaxwellEquations to eliminate the constant term of 1/2 or any other constantexcept that of 1.One Argument, usually called the Units argument:E = FD, energy = force x distanceF = MA, force = mass x accelerationE = MADV = D/T, velocity = distance/timeA = V/T, acceleration = velocity/timeA = D/TTE = M(DD/TT) = MccNow the reason that physicists never accepted that as a full fledgedproof, is that they were unsure the constant in front of Mcc issomething other than a 1.But in their haste to object to the argument, they failed to applyMaxwell Equations as relativistic.Application of Maxwell Equations:1) c is a constant speed2) c is a maximum speedNow, we have E = M(DD/TT) = mc^2If the constant K in Kmc^2 was something other than 1, suppose it was1/2mcc as in kinetic energy 1/2mvv, then we have the speed of lightless than c. If the constant K were greater than 1 then it violatesthe c as maximum speed.Second Argument:We have a second logical units argument using momentum rather thankinetic energy:P = MV, momentum equal to mass x velocityP = FT, momentum equal to force x timeE = FD and relativistic D is thus c, for if not we violate c is amaximumE = Fcnow since F = ma and where light speed cannot accelerate but remainthe constant c we haveF = mcSubstituting we haveE = mccSo the units argument of both kinetic energy and of momentum rely onremoving all constants K except for the constant of 1. And those areremoved by the two facts of light speed-- a constant and a maximum.Only the constant 1 allows no contradictions to light speed.But the logical argument above tells us more about the thorny issue ofrest mass versus energy. Are we to believe that the two transitionfrom one to the other, as a equivalence or equality? Or better yet,that the two are dualities. For example when a electron and positronannihilate, are we to believe the rest mass no longer exists andconverted to a light wave energy, or that the rest masses still existin the light wave? For a answer to that question we look atelectricity and magnetism. Are we to say that electricity equals orequivalent to magnetism? Or better say they are dualities, wheredepending on the experiment used, displays electricity more thanmagnetism or displays energy more than mass.A nice analogy is a slinky toy. The toy is rest mass of a particlewhen packaged in the box. When let loose and stretched as far as itcan stretch it is energy wave. But it is still a particle, only astretched particle.So physicists have to be very cautious about equal signs andequivalence statements, because when we get down to the axioms ofphysics, the Maxwell Equations, electricity, magnetism, particle,wave, rest-mass, charge, energy, time, distance, there is no equalityor equivalence but duality and duality transformations.We do not speak of the equivalence of proton to electron to that of aneutron. We think of the proton and electron as duality of charge andthat they reside inside the neutron until the neutron decays. So theformula 0 = -1 +1 is not saying the neutron equivalency of electronand proton, but rather the duality of parameters involved.We still use the equal sign and the equivalence sign borrowed frommathematics and we use the language of equal or equivalent, but inphysics, we should not mistake our borrowing of mathematical symbolswith what is physically going on. Energy is not equivalent to mass,nor is electricity equivalent to magnetism, but rather they aredualities of physics.Duality is a concept that is lower than what equality is a concept inmathematics. In fact, mathematics has no concept lower than equality.But Physics is richer than mathematics and physics subsumes all ofmathematics. And so, in physics there is a concept of equality, but aconcept even lower in that of duality.--Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple andfair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutoniumwhole entire Universe is just one big atomwhere dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
```