Re: Geometrical interpretation of c^2

Andre, thank you for that paper and collaborating evidence. I know it
is not your job to bail me out and I don't think that I need bailing
out, but if it is both of our jobs to search for truth than we should
call it as we see it. That is all I ask.
I have seen( E=hf) = (E=mc^2) before. The reason I just said that E=hf
= c^2 instead of E=hf=mc^2 is because the original equation was E=hf/
c^2 not E=hf/mc^2. I thought that I could use just c^2 instead of mc^2
or Ec^2 in my equations because it mirrored original. Still even E=hf
= mc^2 is equating (mc^2) with (hf) which is a frequency measurement.
I don't think the difference should invalidate the equation I used and
at the same time I should not be stuck on using just c^2 instead of
mc^2 either if that makes for better understanding.

Andre you also stated that I was wrong from the start to say c^2 is a
frequency. But when Eric said,
“Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 is frequency, which
has
units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no excuse for saying such
things.”
you said
“Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some
sort of fundamental unit lenght ?” You were right.

The way I see it is that the fundamental length scale is c^2 and
represents the length it takes a free electron to complete one wave
cycle at a frequency of one fundamental time unite.

And so his c^2 as [length/time]^2 = frequency as [sqrt[1 unite of
fundamental length /time]^2 and is the same but he doesn't know it. I
say the square root of 1 fundamental length over time because a
fundamental length does not appear as one dimensional length in nature
and all though it is length over time squared it is not just a square
area either but a 3D or 4D phenomenon counting time.

I know he will argue that [1/time]^2 is not same as sqrt[1/time}^2 but
I can explain.
Again the fundamental length it takes a free electron to complete one
wave cycle in one fundamental unite of time.

I could change c^2 to mc^2 or Ec^2 and call that a frequency instead
but to me it is the same. And the main point that frequency converges
to c^2 as a high frequency cut off where energy turns to matter with
rest mass still holds true for me. I don't see what all the confusion
is about because it is so clear to me. c^2, mc^2 or Ec^2 if you
prefer, is still a circular or spherical frequency.

Timo this is for you too. And thank you for that constructive
criticism as opposed to the destructive impolite criticisms of some
even though it doesn't discourage me from believing I am right. It
still surprises me that grown people studying such a noble subject act
that way.

http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.html according
to this site frequency was said to diverge to v^2 and I understand
that this was interpreted as infinity. When I say that frequency
converges to (c^2) I mean that if frequency were to combine it would
not lead to infinity but to c^2 or mc^2 which to me is a frequency/
wavelength of rest mass.

John, have not forgotten you. Had trouble uploading files on Google
docs but should have my own website back up soon where I can upload
the files without trouble.

vps137
Saw your site but could not interpret it do you have something in
English?

Conrad





.

Loading