C Squared

Actually I've answered most of your questions so either you can't understand me or you plain think I'm wrong and it's probably a mixture of both.

So what's your rebuttal to mc^2, mv^2, hf, Fd, and Pt in general? We know that F=dp/dt in terms of momentum per the rate of change of time and F=dE/dr in terms of energy per the rate of change of the radius and the origin of force comes from the wave cone unity where a photon is divided out and we get E^2/hc>\/=h/16pi^2tq thus dE/dr>\/=h/16pi^2tq meaning that force is the initial schism which seems to separate the photon pair. Although they're not really separated because they've simply become an inequality gauge where E^2/hc is a massive force (because this h is now being propelled at light speed) and h/16pi^2tq is a zero rest mass force (because this h is just going along for the ride and experiencing none of the effects of light speed because it's actually travelling within the massive photon at a much slower rate like when I said the gravelocity must have a slow internal velocity so things inside a vacuumotor craft aren't squooshed against the hull) vulgarly meaning massive force>\/=zero rest mass force inextricabally linking the photon pair as Newton's 3rd Law does.

This means that not only did Newton anticipate Fd and mv^2 with his modified inverse square law Fd=Gm^2/d but he also predicted the wave cone uncertainty force E^2/hc>\/=h/16pi^2tq with his 3rd Law of Mechanics. The prior's been sitting around for nearly two centuries while the latter's been hanging about for more than half a century and you don't think that there's anyone out there at all that can't fathom the questions your asking much less answer them? Need I remind you that they threw my man Galileo in a tower for merely saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Or mayhaps Edison (in the name of crapitalism) railroading Tesla because Tesla wanted to provide free energy for everyone at zero cost?

What I mean is that there's an entire culture out there (from way back in the day) whose only mission is to hold back the truth in essence preventing and retarding the answers to questions such as men like you ask. So does this mean that no one has the answers? No this means that if you have the answers you have to subscribe to the laws of secrecy, obtain a national security patent, and hold your damn breath regarding everything you know about photon mass, zerosphere physics, biwave pairs, and the list goes on. Or else if you speak about the application of these kinds of things you will be taken care of, either Tony Soprano style by the No Such Agency ie disappeared, or by other untraceable means that appear a normal accident or congenital heart defect due to the Malthusian and drakonian interests of big oil. Because freedom of speech is only free so long as you talk about Janet's Superbowl titty, who's Britney's baby daddy, or any of their low level hypocritical political double speak or low level eschelon science. Personally I'm only saying 10% of what I could while merely using 1% of the math to do it.

Yet I vehemently agree with you regarding the physical interpretations and other views surrounding this insane mc^2 entity because with the amount of energy that it creates due to a human mass given even Austin Powers 'mini me' should be a god. Even if that lil dude weighs 30 kilos x c^2 he'll still be equivalent to 2.7x10^18 Joules and I've read that the largest hydrogen bomb ever tested only produced 2.4x10^17 Joules so whenev you say whatev about mc^2 you're preachin to a pastor man.

.....................................Omni

Omni, I'm sure you are right about all the stuff you are posting-the thing is it has nothing to do with the photon or c^2 which my focus. So, most of what you post is pointless drival and a tiny bit is on the topic. Anyway back to the grindstone here, the photon must have mass if matter and energy are equivalent. I see no reason to believe any photon has more mass than any other photon. So, we differ on this detail. My question about c^2 is the absolute value that is assumed by everyone. I think c^2 is an approximation-not an absolute so we may differ on that detail,or not. I think Planck's Constant is used in a manner that misleads everyone who believes it describes the photon and we differ here too. It is not an issue of who is right or wrong-these details are in need of remodeling.

Jim, rigorously I believe everything I write has a point and I do aquiesce that most of what I read on this site has a point yet the majority of what I read here throughout all the topics is drival when compared to the 90% of the junk dna I know that I'm legally bound not to share but the drival here keeps me amused so I continue to return and in turn imbue my own drivalings. I can see where you're coming from regarding the fact the photon mass is the same for all photons, it's just cutting through all the Planck wavelength red tape as it were. As for c^2 itself I've said that it can be shown massxgravelocity^2 and massxchargevelocity^2 so c^2 is only an absolute in terms of light speed and not an absolute in terms of the gravelocity and chargevelocity. As for Planck's constant it can be seen as 6.626x10^-34Js or 6.626x10^-34Ws^2, and several other ways but Schroedingers wave equation is a much better depiction of quantum mechanics than merely a photon itself. As for the topic of right and wrong it's all a matter of rambling semantic insanity and no one's ever going to be able to really apply any higher level eschelon science on lab benches at large across the world until the restrictions are removed by gov't.

So with that said what do you think about the pointless drivel

"We know that F=dp/dt in terms of momentum per the rate of change of time and F=dE/dr in terms of energy per the rate of change of the radius and the origin of force comes from the wave cone unity where a photon is divided out and we get E^2/hc>\/=h/16pi^2tq thus dE/dr>\/=h/16pi^2tq meaning that force is the initial schism which seems to separate the photon pair. Although they're not really separated because they've simply become an inequality gauge where E^2/hc is a massive force (because this h is now being propelled at light speed) and h/16pi^2tq is a zero rest mass force (because this h is just going along for the ride and experiencing none of the effects of light speed because it's actually travelling within the massive photon at a much slower rate like when I said the gravelocity must have a slow internal velocity so things inside a vacuumotor craft aren't squooshed against the hull) vulgarly meaning massive rest force>\/=zero rest mass force inextricabally linking the photon pair as Newton's 3rd Law does."

I like the definition you posted of: 10E-34ws^2. This is a solid statement whereas 10E-34Js is the same thing it is not solid. Now, the photon is derived from that and is defined: E=hf. It is the hf part I think is misused and you may think it is a splitting hairs kind of thing but I am sure it is important. The hf part is equal and in fact the same as what is given in Stephen's statement about this stuff. It is only in another form. If you put the units all in one statement E=hf becomes: J/s^2=10E-34wf. Does that make any sense?

I had to scan it for a couple minutes but then it finally made perfect sense to me because I remembered something I wrote back on page 10,

"P/f=h/t or E/t/t=Et/t is the action whose equal reaction is the cancellation of time on both sides whose opposite reaction is that time's cancelling from the bottom on one side and cancelling from the top on the other so E=E. It could be seen that E/t^2=E/t^2 whose equal reaction is the reciprocation of time whose opposite reaction is that time reciprocates upwards from one side and time reciprocates downwards from the other side of the proportion leaving ma^2=massxaccel^2 which's > E."

But in order to wrangle J/s^2=6.626x10^-34Wf we have to use the proportion I've given because we're not really dealing with E=hf anymore. What we're dealing with here is the wholesale acceleration of energy itself because acceleration is per second squared and we're actually dealing with energy per second squared. Turns out to be 6.626x10^-34md^2/t^4 or in essence Fa=6.626x10^-34ma^2 assuming the t^2 reciprocates upwards to become t^4. So now the infamous Force=6.626x10^-34Fa/a but for all intents and purposes Fa=hf assuming the second reciprocates downwards in hf instead of cancelling to get E. So technically it's the acceleration of the force that's responsible for accelerating energy.

But what does it mean E/t^2 or the acceleration of energy? Well energy is the ability to do work and acceleration is the rate of change of velocity so it's the ability to do work at the rate of change of velocity. Thus wheras energy itself is the required Joules to get work done, the acceleration of energy is actually work happening. Fa=hf merely means that everything is constantly being constructed from light itself.