- Thank you received: 0
C Squared
20 years 5 months ago #10927
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
Yes I'll have to prove to you how it isn't a second in the 'opposite reaction' portion of this post again Jim, omninfinitely it seems I'll be doing this but since I have forever...vetahw.
Pp=hm^2/d^2=(6.626x10^-34Jx6.672x10^-11pd^2/m^2)/t because if it's not a numerated second then it won't be able to cancel the lower second in essence meaning the inverse square law for 'gravilight' is the power momentum for everything. In the old school E=hf where the upper t is a second this is light energizing everything.
......................zerosfear
E=hf could also be considered a phonon sound or the vibratory energy everything gives off proving this is an imaginary equation because what's more imaginary than the sound/voice itself? Silence? E=hf is only deceptive to those sheople who haven't directly been able to apply its imaginary ramifications to the real world through Pp=hm^2/d^2, or whatev other equations I've said, Jim.
When you decide to telejump at c^2=E/m you're going to 'remotely scan' the phonon sound locale you're about to telejump to with the equation E=hf so you don't end up 'jumping into solid matter.
The statment E=hf isn't deceptive to me unless someone has a scan block on on the other end of the scan, Jim.
Pp=hm^2/d^2=(6.626x10^-34Jx6.672x10^-11pd^2/m^2)/t because if it's not a numerated second then it won't be able to cancel the lower second in essence meaning the inverse square law for 'gravilight' is the power momentum for everything. In the old school E=hf where the upper t is a second this is light energizing everything.
......................zerosfear
E=hf could also be considered a phonon sound or the vibratory energy everything gives off proving this is an imaginary equation because what's more imaginary than the sound/voice itself? Silence? E=hf is only deceptive to those sheople who haven't directly been able to apply its imaginary ramifications to the real world through Pp=hm^2/d^2, or whatev other equations I've said, Jim.
When you decide to telejump at c^2=E/m you're going to 'remotely scan' the phonon sound locale you're about to telejump to with the equation E=hf so you don't end up 'jumping into solid matter.
The statment E=hf isn't deceptive to me unless someone has a scan block on on the other end of the scan, Jim.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #11225
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The upper s in h is used to cancel the lower s in f. If you use this method you get the common photon with increasing energy as frequency increases. To me that is clearly the wrong result as can be seen in any number of interactions between energy and matter. For example, chemical reactions are all related to one ev and a lot of them are(maybe all of them) accomplished with a photon. So, what you get by using the statement e=hf as you and everyone is doing is a bundle of photons not a photon.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #10928
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
That's precisely what I'm saying when I use hf as a scanner to remotely view locations. Since everything's made out of light there's photons everywhere which is really handy for getting an absolutely perfect scan of any location at all in which to telejump. I've already explicitly stated there's an equal and opposite photon meaning there's at least two photons for every photon action. You act like I use hf alone but I use so many equations in conjunction with that one to do...well, nearly anything.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 1 month ago #11744
by north
people
i was wondering if E=mc^2, should not be more defined.
what is was thinking is that, E(energy) , should be more defined as that of pure high energy plasma(non-particle).
this would then leave the speed of light as c^n(at the very least more than squared) i imagine that there is still a limit(maybe not, we don't know enough yet)
since we do not know the speed of high energy plasma as of yet.we can't say that lightspeed is the limit.high energy plasma must be faster than the speed of light because it is energy(non-particle) no mass.
we can see light but not high energy plasma.
Replied by north on topic Reply from
people
i was wondering if E=mc^2, should not be more defined.
what is was thinking is that, E(energy) , should be more defined as that of pure high energy plasma(non-particle).
this would then leave the speed of light as c^n(at the very least more than squared) i imagine that there is still a limit(maybe not, we don't know enough yet)
since we do not know the speed of high energy plasma as of yet.we can't say that lightspeed is the limit.high energy plasma must be faster than the speed of light because it is energy(non-particle) no mass.
we can see light but not high energy plasma.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.264 seconds