J:"OK : An antiproton at rest. I can understand that, it is not moving in relation to any other object in the universe or its own structure. "

R.L.: That is NOT what at rest means you dolt- that statement proves you do not understand galilean reference frames much less relativistic ones... You can only talk about at rest in terms of a given reference frame!! ANYONE with ANY knowledge of reality understands that!
J: Good: I just wanted to make sure that you understood the concept of motion and kinetic energy. Kinetic energy and "motion" can not be separated. If there is kinetic energy, then there is also 'motion' of some type or another. In order to detect motion, one must reference that motion to something or another. Right? Do we agree on that much, or do you have a different understanding of motion and energy?
J:"OK : perhaps we do not know, so lets take a guess. Say that the particles are one nanometer away from each other. Now my question is: How do they *get together* or annihilate each other if they do not move? "
R.L: Actually, quantum physics allows them to get together but since you have such trouble with classical physics and grade school math I didnt want to confuse you further... Lets just say they pop into existance 1 angstrom apart, this is possible but nearly infinitely unlikely.
J: Hmm... If they "pop into existence" were they * created * or can you explain where they came from?
R.L.: At this point they attract each other since they are of opposite charge .
J: What in your opinion is the fundamental meaning of the word "charge". Don't tell me that it is a force that causes the objects or particles to move toward or away from each other, I already know that. Instead, tell me where and how this "charge" develops in the electron or proton, and why it can cause the * charged * objects or particles to move?
I have plausible answers to the above questions. Not only that, the explanations do not require a high degree of math ability, though the condensed result is a math formula.
R.L.: First part: At t=0 they are at rest with respect to eachother The potential energy between them is 'U' They collide with net kinetic energy KE=U... (conservation of energy).
Second part: The KE<<<<(M_p)c^2, MINISCULE in comparison to the rest mass.
Third part: The net energy after the event is 2(M_p)c^2+U
For those that do not have a very good grasp of math formulas, I will give my understanding of the above stated logic. ( I am sure that if I make an error or do not understand the convention that R.L. uses, then he will call me every name under the sun. The probability is also very high that he will try to insult me regardless of what I say. Anyone want to bet? :-)
In the first part, the assumption is made that "energy" can not be destroyed. To express the same notion differently; energy must always exist in some form or another. What * energy * IS, is not explained, only that IF it exists it must always remain somewhere. Energy can not disappear, it can change to a different * form * but it must always be conserved. Other notions that are presented in the first part are that; if two * entities * (proton & antiproton) are approaching towards each other, (attracted by some mysterious * force * known as a charge.) Then both kinetic and * potential * for kinetic energy are involved in the process. A further assurance is made that at the moment of impact the kinetic energy is at its maximum and the potential 'energy' is at its minimum.

In the second part, it is indicated that the kinetic energy resulting from the collision of the two * entities * is "MINUSCULE" if you compare it to the * energy * that is *CONTAINED WITHIN * the two entities.
In the third part, the total (combined) internal * energy * of the two * entities * plus the * energy * of the collision between the two particles is represented.
I suspect that this 'English version' of the event may be easier for many people to understand. The best way, in my opinion, is to understand the mathematical version and the 'English version' simultaneously. Not only that, but it would be even better to understand WHY it happens.
R.L. BUT since you have a problem with motion, take a single neutron at rest instead...
It decays becoming an electron and a proton but M(neutron)>M(proton)+M(electron) what happens to the missing mass? It becomes energy (mostly kinetic energy) according to einsteins formula:
E=(M(neutron)-(M(proton)+M(electron)))c^2
I do not doubt that. In fact my model/formula gives a good explanation as to WHY and HOW it occurs.

R.L. As for how this energy does work, nearly any power source relies on the conversion of mass to energy... nuclear plants to coal plants all rely on this...
I'm not going to debate about chemical energies, my interest lies in the explanation of fundamental or 'theoretical' physics.
R.L. Now, I have spent over a decade learning these thing from people that are experts in it, I have the full history of research into the subject to back me up, and I have taught it to others- YOU on the other hand dont even understand the basic science required to learn this subject...
Perhaps you can teach me more than I already know; lets see, I have a pretty good idea of what energy, mass, charge, gravity, and magnetism are and why they behave the way they do. Perhaps you can increase my knowledge by explaining your version of those phenomenon and explaining in detail why these phenomenon behave in the observed manner.
R.L.:At age 12 or 13 (possibly earlier) I was sitting in on university classes on this subject,
Do you have proof of your claim?
R.L. have you had a single legitimate class on this ?
By the term; "legitimate class on this", I assume that you mean a situation where someone explained to me (and many others) what mass and energy are and how the mass, energy, and constant, integrate and interact to form the various fields such as gravity, magnetism, and charge.
The answer to that question is no. I had to do that all by my self. Naturally, before I could figure out the answers, I needed a very good background knowledge on the subject matter, and I can thank all the school teachers, university professors, and books (mostly in university libraries) that influenced the final understanding that I now have.

J:"I have a model or a theory that explains these types of phenomenon and many other wonders of nature."
R.L. ROTFLMAO! Given your complete ignorance on the subjects and your pathological view of reality I am sure your grand "THEORY" would make wonderful entertainment!

Thank you. Your suggestion of integrating my 'grand theory' into a form of entertainment (perhaps science fiction) is not a bad one.
If the scientific community does not understand it or can not accept new information, then it may be possible that someone that is not so dogmatic might find it useful.

Keep smiling
Johannes