Capiert

"Per second" [1/s] implies frequency & Joule has 2 of them. Newton*second [N*s] has only 1. Energy E has Joule(s) [J] units (in square_brackets) which is kilogram(s) [kg] (mass m) (multiplied by) meters_squared [m^2] (length_squared) per (=divided by) seconds_squared [s^2] (time_squared). If wavelength (is length per cycle, then its) units are meter per cycle [m/c]. Frequency is cycles per second [c/s]=[cps]=[Hz] Herz. Please notice (&/or forgive) the (slight) discrepancy between cycle (singular) [c] & cycles (plural) [c]'s (i(t')s awkward). I'( wi)ll try to ignore the 's. The wave's speed c=f*L (is frequency f multiplied wavelength L; & that) has units [cycles/second]*[meter/cycle] =[c/s]*[m/c] Cancelling [cycle]'s we'( a)re left with [meter/second]'s=[m/s]. (As I said partial_plural is awkward & hopefully ignorable, or forgiveable.) The point (there) is: the cycles in the top & bottom (=nummerator & denominator) either cancel or they don't; meaning they are there (implied) in(to) the equation or are not, but can be substituted in. If we'( ha)ve substituted c=f*L for 1 of the (kinetic) energy's speeds, then we can (also) do that for the (=its) other speed, as well (just to be consistent). Visually (for me), units of "per second_squared" [1/(s^2)] implies (to me) frequency_squared f^2 when accompanied (=multiplied) with wavelength, & (=but) having no trace of [cycle]=[c] units because they (are) cancell(ed). My beef (=complaint) is I'm getting indications of frequency_squared when I see units of "per second_squared" (in the energy unit: Joule) while trying to be consistent. E.g. If I have "per second" unit in a formula that has frequency f, that's obvious. But instead that happens twice as "per second"*"per second" ="per second_squared", so I must conclude (to be consistent) that "frequency_squared" exists in that (energy) formula. I know energy & momentum have different units. & in momentum "per second" exists only once, so I must conclude momentum depends on a single frequency because it has only 1 "per second" unit. I can NOT say that about energy because it has 2 "per second" units (i.e. multiplied together). Thus I must conclude that energy depends on frequency_squared, instead. E.g. Inspite of the nice or perfect constant h chosen (to fix the mess). I hope that'( i)s a help. Is that what you'( a)re looking for?

If you said light's momentum mom=k*f depended on frequency f (when the constant k=m*L is the mass m multiplied by the wavelength L), then I'd probably believe you because it is (only) has mass m multiplied by speed c=f*L. But NOT energy, because (the) KE (equivalent) has speed_squared, where I'd expect c^2=(f*L)^2. So I expect light's "energy" (e.g. KE equivalent) to depend on frequency_squared f^2; NOT simply f.

Science is independently reproducible results (experimentally), if the method is stated (=given). Interpretation is another thing. No reference system (e.g. perspective) has priority. Einstein. Btw DT entered politics because NOT enough "good" people were in the government, if the intention was to twist his meaning, or you unfortunately did NOT understand the paradox. All paradoxes can be solved with simple common sense. Plato. Who has it (that common sense)? Every healthy person. Who uses it (=cs)? Not everyone. Why? Education. P.S. I don't know why your political quote is (being advertized) in physics. People prefer to build walls, instead of bridges. Newton. I think we should be working together, but I doubt that all can.

I suspect you are confusing matter with mass. Mass is a number, & matter is that stuff we can hold in our hand. It's true we often don't bother distinguishing & take the shortcut (substitution). That doesn't tell me much. Theory is the assumption. What about the evidence? Yes I do my best. What's that? a.dul(l).ed. What are you you talking about? Is it physics? ? I write this way to reduce errors, also because this website's software produces errors. I have not a better method to reduce them (errors). If I make comprimises (I get confused) & you guys lock my threads faster. That's NOT true! That's only your opinion (=guess, or bias). Newspaper columns are also narrow. That I carriage return formally at the end of a phrase is not much different & has a natural pause. What's your problem?

It makes sense to me, even if you can't understand. ? You just stated the point, there with that speed. (=Confirmation). So do you mean photons do NOT travel at c? Ridiculous what you're saying. How do you know photons have no mass? Isn't that only an assumption? Maybe you can elaborate on that a bit, perhaps the need (why)? I suspect that is more your attitude than mine. I thought this was a science website instead of a social discriminating website because you don't like children or writing styles. Would you please stick to physics & refrain from your repetitive derogatory remarks. If you don't like what I write, simply leave. I'm sure you've got more important things to do. (I know I'm not perfect, but I try to do my best.)

Yes, the energy equivalent is KE, having speed_squared in its units. Thus the (=my) logical conclusion would be to use the speed equivalent, also; which has both frequency f & wavelength L. Using the f*L combination as speed, in a KE combination (equivalent) gives a frequency_squared, & wavelength_squared, substitution. Is that unlogical? Even if photons do NOT have a mass (which I doubt, because it's a number coeefficient for equations) I can still apply a (KE's) 'virtual' mass when equating energies.

If E=m*(c^2) & light's_speed c=f*L where L is the wavelength Lambda then surely the energy must be related to the frequency_squared (f^2) instead, otherwise the units do NOT fit. Please explain.

The frequency f=c/lambda (should be) f=c*m/((2*d*x)^0.5). As you can see that's NOT f=c/nu if nu is x (=photo film displacement). You might not be discussing spectroscopy but I am; & a (search for a) consistent (kinetic) energy; NOT a mixture of energy & vis viva.

As you can see above, I think Sensei (also) complained enough about those units NOT being correct. Nu is a wave number, NOT frequency. The (diffracted) distance where the spectral lines are found on film, versus (=wrt) straight thru without diffraction (grating, or prism). [Reflected photons can loose some of their energy as a bounce, but your question is wrongly put for what you want to know.] The film does NOT change the photon energy per se, (in what we're interested here). The amount, that the light is bent or deflected (i.e. diffracted) indicates the wavelength. We know c=f*L(ambda); & the energy is proportional to the frequency. Assuming c is constant. So f=c/Lambda; energy is inversely proportional to the deflected distance on the photo film. But it is NOT correct to assume that (either inverse or not inverse) distance nu (which I simply call x (=deflected distance) wrt y_distance (diffraction_grating to film, perpendicular_distance)) is the wavelength. Nu is NOT the wavelength; & it (=nu) is NOT the inverse_wavelength either (which physicists call wavenumber). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber In spectroscopy, "wavenumber" (=nu_bar) often refers to a frequency which has been divided by the speed of light in vacuum: The historical reason for using this spectroscopic wavenumber rather than frequency is that it proved to be convenient in the measurement of atomic spectra: the spectroscopic wavenumber is the reciprocal of the wavelength of light in vacuum: which remains essentially the same in air, and so the spectroscopic wavenumber is directly related to the angles of light scattered from diffraction gratings and the distance between fringes in interferometers, when those instruments are operated in air or vacuum. Such wavenumbers were first used in the calculations of Johannes Rydberg in the 1880s. The Rydberg–Ritz combination principle of 1908 was also formulated in terms of wavenumbers. A few years later spectral lines could be understood in quantum theory as differences between energy levels, energy being proportional to wavenumber, or frequency. However, spectroscopic data kept being tabulated in terms of spectroscopic wavenumber rather than frequency or energy.

Yes Sensei, I wanted to say that formula is still wrong. E=h*nu*c/2 & still won't give you the frequency f, because nu is a photo film distance; NOT the (real) inverse wavelength. lambda=((2*d*nu)^0.5)/m wrt Wiki's diffraction grating syntax slit to slit width d, order m, e.g. 1.

Sensei, the photon energy formula also looks wrong. It's missing the "half"! I.e. The same failure, but in reverse! It really looks like this guy Einstein mixed things up! He makes 1 severe error, & then compesates for it elsewhere. The momentum is mom=h*nu (wavenumber nu; NOT frequency f!) for (Einstein's) Planck's constant h. Energy=mom*va. E=h*f*c/2, where the average_speed va=(vi+vf)/2 is between initial_speed vi=0 m/s & the final_speed vf=c, light's_speed. c=f*lambda for wavelength lambda.

Strange, maybe I haven't found the right question to make it click for you? What should I be asking you about KE to get you to recognize my perspective?

I'm sorry Bender, but I don't think you got my point. (The rest mass energy is in no way correctly calibrated to KE, thus can NOT be energy. Einstein was discussing vis Viva=2*KE; NOT KE!). I know there is no half in Einstein's equation, everybody knows that. But I doubr Einstein got it right because he broke continuity. He broke the rules. (What is for you properly? Starting with an assumption?) Sensei, KE can still calculate the mass, but it's a different value than Einstein's; & perhaps has the guarantee that it's correct because it does NOT break the rules.? Strange, KE is about as basic to physics, as it gets. You guys try to escape (=avoid) that, (basic physics). That's what bluffs me. You prefer 1 guys assumptions, inspite of the hints against it.

Kelvin 1900 vs M&M & (K)E is m*(c^2)/2 Wed 2018 03 28 02:48 PS Wi 6.9 C https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers In 1900, Lord Kelvin, in a lecture titled "Nineteenth-Century Clouds over the Dynamical Theory of Heat and Light",[5] suggested that physics had no satisfactory explanations for the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment and for black body radiation. As introduced, special relativity provided an account for the results of the Michelson–Morley experiments. Einstein's theories for the photoelectric effect extended the quantum theory which Max Planck had developed in his successful explanation of black body radiation. --- "It's about half!": (K)E=m*(c^2)(/2) PS: How did Einstein know the energy was m*(c^2); & NOT KE=m*(c^2)(/2). I say he (=Einstein) did NOT know(!): he only guessed or approximated! (But he=Einstein is very decided in using "2" "halves" of (K)E [#L] in the early part of the paper; & pushing the Lorentz contraction thru to make (up) the (non_sense; non_followable, quantum_jump) so_called following "conclusion?" (i.e. without "K"E). If a body gives off the (kinetic) energy (K)E=m*(c^2)/2 [#L] in the form of radiation, its mass should diminish by (K)E*(2)/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes (light's_speed's) energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of a body is a measure of its (kinetic) energy_content; if the energy changes by (K)E, (then) the mass changes in the same sense by (K)E*(2)/(9 × 1020), the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes. (PS: Also typical confusion, preferring Einstein's original units; NOT (promoting) standard (modern) SI units, such as Joules & Kg.) See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ --- Sat 2018 03 31 04:28.. PS Wi 6.2 C I repeat, I doubt Einstein's calculation(s) because he gave the clue to their basis being the KE's mass, but he pushed (=promoted) his Lorentz contraction 1st with=as priority before mentioning the KE relevance. Instead I would prefer to start with the KE relevance to mass m=KE/(v*va) & work backwards (wrt Einstein), to show he's wrong (when) starting without the half in the 1st place, as his fatal error. Einstein's syntax is also a bit reversed (to my preference for larger postscript having more; but seems (a typical) standard). E.g. Initial_energies=postscripts 0 final_energies=postscript 1 Resting coordinate energy E Moving coordinate energy H. [At 1st I (wrongly) thought (his energy) L could have represented wavelength (or a wave number) but it's NOT true.] Somewhere I've done similar KE comparisons to show KE is (already) relativistic, (e.g. (extrap(olate)able) using simple fractions of c=1, or physicists beta=v/c e.g. let v=0, 1/2, 1/4 (of c). The (non_linear) relativism becomes obvious with the 1/4 vs 3/4 ratios for initial_speed vi & final_speed vf, when v=vf-vi in the form KE=m*((vf^2)-(vi^2))/2. Let vi=0, & vf=1/2 (of c) KE=m*(((1/2)^2)-(0^2))/2 KE=m*((1/4)-(0^2))/2 KE=m/8. Let vi=1/2, & vf=1 (of c) KE=m*((1^2)-((1/2)^2))/2 KE=m*(1-(1/4))/2 KE=m*(3/4))/2 KE=m*3/8. Please notice, both together add to m*4/8 =m/2 i.e. "half" which is the maximum for those cases. That was only a split into 2 producing 1/8th & 3/8th of m. If we split into 4, vf=1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, then the finals are 1/32, 4/32 9/32 16/32 where (the KE's are (related so:)) m*1/32 (for) vi=0, vf=1/4 m*3/32 vi=1/4, vf=2/4 m*5/32 vi=2/4, vf=3/4 m*7/32 vi=3/4, vf=4/4. Please notice those differ by 1 (wrt 0), 2, 2, 2, 1 of 32 (=(c^2)/2). Important is their sum is m*16/32 =m/2 = half of m, again. (E.g. KE=m*(c^2)/2.) So that is how CO(k)E (conservation of (kinetic) energy) is (non_linearly) guaranteed. I would then have to question what Einstein is doing with [his] coe, because he seems to be in error (when missing the half). I mean, that is how (kinetic) energy is calibrated i.e. related. Getting more than half (m) is abracadabra, i.e. energy creation. =Wishful thinking. Maybe somebody can help point me in the right direction, because I can't confirm him. ?

Yes that is her, mother nature (our good (go()d)). European languages inflect (gramatic) gender, not sex, for the attitude (mentality) of (trying to help) how to think, style (a method), I suspect female: is "inclusive" (completing) the whole "picture", seeing the forest (for the trees); male: "exclusive" "details", only 1 (not the others), "that" tree from the forest; neutral: either, or neither (is dominant), "both" are/could_be valid (together). -(That's what "I" got out of) Plato's Symposium.). I suspect Strange doesn't get an answer, (from people) about their (concept of) ether because he intrudes on their privacy. For some, ether is (spiritual, e.g. atmosphere, ageo pneumatos non_(physical=)earthly air, the "it", from the 3 (person(al) perspectives: "I" Al(l_)I'm, all that I am (ego); "you", is_so_you, the (is)real you (=jew); & "it", romantic atmosphere, or (spir)it. (Tip: it's how you pronounce; NOT how it was spelled (in todays standards) that counts (for then).) The catholic church never understood (that) they were dealing with grammar because they (had) admitted they could NOT understand, the trinity: stating It was not to be understood.) the closest thing to god (a dialog: between (their) reasonable (thinking); & (their) emotional (feeling(s))) they have no defenses (psychologically). It's very personal. (=Belief). In other words they are not prepared to defend themselves for something(s) they have constantly observed (as obvious). You're doing well. dido. Just trying to explain why they might react so. It's a normal (natural) "reaction". (Newton 3rd (psychology?)) TOE etc?

Please explain (M&M at rest (a bit, & the other)). (Maxwel said terrestrial measurements were NOT valid (decisively), =incapable, because they were bidirectional self_compensating, average( observation)s. Thus we could dismiss that method as NOT a serious (or useable) method (for the argument).) But do we? & we do. We see doppler red shift in the universe (expanding). (& light falls (=bends from our (earth) perspective, similar to a Coreolis acceleration, or centifugal acceleration (false force, wrong perspective (for the explaination (sorry for the preference)); but sound does not (fall). & yet you wish to ignore those (falling light) propagation effects, in favour of preferred (gravity) interpretations (which have been varrying thru the centuries with new evidence). Without that reference (the universe) we would not be able to predict those velocities (of matter moving away from us). E.g. There would be no basis (=working theory; unless doppler shift is relativity, or (simply) visa versa). I'm implying the (whole) universe is the ether (carry=transporting (both) matter as well as light) there. Isn't seeing from "within" a medium a little different than looking at it (bird's_eye view)? Isn't it possible, what we expect, isn't always right=correct, considering science is continuing to improve? E.g. Looking at the theory "changes" thru the centuries. The interpretation has often made the difference. Isn't doppler shift an affect on linear propagation that involves speed? (E.g. frequency & wavelength (changes), for the (sound or light_) speed (that) we receive on earth). & yet it is completely classical used in cosmology (I mean astronomy). (That (doppler principle wrt v) sounds to me like a pretty sound (=stable) basis.) Isn't there a (stable, reliable) stellar object out there that we can measure its (spectral) frequency & variation? (Which brings up the question:) How accurately (=to what precision) can we measure extra_terrestrial (light) frequencies (coming in at earth)? After looking at some of the (large) planets thru a telescope I got the impression 1 half (at the boarder, nearest its circumference, (particularly) equatorially) (left vs right) looked slightly blue_isher (than its other (half); & the other (half) reddish(er), (E.g. left versus right, or the other way around depending on which type of telescope whether image inverting, or not). (I can't remember which.)

Please continue, & summarize those properties & tests.

To answer that, I suppose l have to compare, for & against, with & without (Ether assumed). 1st, I suppose it's the mystery about what we don't know about it (=Ether), (the quintesscence, there's a sense of romanticism there, to it, chasing after something you can't (quite) get) because it's so (super)fluent & evasive from our attempts to observe it (=Ether). Perhaps that's why they gave it a similar name to an alcohol (or visa versa)? & why I avoid naming "it" (guess what, ?) with pronouns. As water is a medium, it is something we can get into, eventually disappearing (swimming or diving). (Going into something, with the ability to come out somewhere else, unknown.) That analogy, leaves us expecting similar consequences, but with a twist for the unexpected (e.g. mystery, unknown). Thus the time (spent) pondering on all the unusual possibilities. E.g. It (=Ether) does NOT behave (completely) as we expect. (Typical for physics electromagnetism, the proton's gyromagnetic ratio, was NOT an integer or fraction.) In what way(s) is it (=the Ether) so unusual? I think we hold onto the ether concept (for those that do) because it is the only tangible concept (framework) that we have (nearest to water, that we are made of). To me Einstein's spacetime looks like the ether (is) stripped of it's physic's. In other words pure math, with only numbers that you could display (plotted, or plotting) on a computer screen (for the elasticity; but NOT admit that it is elasticity. I.e. a denial=lie.) Something that you could dream up in your head, or make a cartoon. Fantasy=pure imagination. Space_time is simply a product (obtained from multiplication) (that inflates the (2) values); not a quotient like (average) velocity ((is), obtained from division) (which is compact). I hope that helps. Did it?

Yes. I'm open for a connection of Newton's Ether with modern physics because I wish to identify the past (definitions). A multi_dimensional (substance) connecting all things (as Interested hints) does sound phascinating to me. The ether's structure as just a bunch of other (e.g. sub_atomic) molecules does seem possible to me, depending on how you look at it. (Seeing the forest, for the trees. The same (=similar) macroscopic behaviour, repeating at "some" microscopic levels (or scales).) As above, so below; & visa versa. Please don't let my previous preferences (which are not (explicitly) a must) interfere with Interested's presentation, & questions, Strange. I'll try to sit back & (enjoy) soak(ing) up the (other) info (that comes along too). He's convinced me of other possibilities. Thanks. Please continue, you're all doing fine & well.

Yes Studiot, it helps. Thank you for taking the time. I like the way you explained because your style has confirmed for me similar ideas I have, in a way understandable to me. Thanks again.

So here it comes: Not the photon! Where did the photon get such intelligence? (I ask.) That's a difficult task for any operator (to master, & calibrate). How is a dumb, passive photon, supposed to be able to do that (calibration or re_aiming) task. We normally have to train people to do that (aiming) to hit that (variable) target. I doubt if you have recognized the situation. Machines do NOT calibrate themselves. If you are shooting, you must aim. Direction (angles) is(/are) a very delicate principle; random will NOT do! "Michelson aimed" the apparatus (only) once (~90°). How does that account for a variable angle (with many possibilities, other than 90°)? The sketch (Fig2, 1887) does NOT have 90° for the vertically_up incident_path. The sketch, is thus, NOT an accurate display of the apparatus's behavior; but instead it is the fantasy (if I may say) of Michelson. That sounds like an acceptable statement. Here's where things get murky. Whoever drew the diagram (I don't want to mention (any) names but I will assume Michelson did.) chose 1 specific angle (for the beam travelling diagonally_up to the right); but it was NOT 90°! (..which the experiment had!). But that doesn't matter, I mean, do scientists always have to do things right? A little experimental error never hurt the funding. Especially when dealing with famous (telephone) people like A. G. Bell. The point is, Michelson had very sensitive apparatus (+1 point for precision); & it was locked_on=calibrated in only 1 position (angle, approx. 90°); & stayed so (calibrated, for producing fringes), so he could (freely) rotate the stone 360°. But that 90° angle is NOT demonstrated in his sketch's (Fig 2, 1887) vertical path. Any child can see that the sketch's (vertical) angle is NOT 90°; & yet the experiment('s setup) was. The experiment versus the diagram (Fig 2, 1887) do NOT correlate on that point of dealing with the sketch's_vertical incident_angle. i.e. half mirror (=that 45°, half) Meaning any speed v. But here's the catch. That's true: once the beam is aimed correctly (then) it stays correctly_aimed, for any angle the apparatus is rotated (into). But for all practical purposes, it is aimed in "only 1" direction wrt the apparatus. (&) Mechanically we can "measure" (that angle was) approximately 90° (for the lab apparatus). Why (then) is that (~90° angle) NOT in Michelson's (Fig 2, 1887) sketch? Why does his "sketch" use a "smaller" angle than (the experimental) 90° (incidence)? Why should I bother with a diagram that does NOT accurately describe the experiment?

(Sorry) No. I guess you mean the x,y axii (plot, for a radius & angle) that Euler named real & imaginary (axii).

(I) try to get rid of it every day.

If it would work ((for me) to fit in a grown up role (then I would do it)); but that suggestion doesn't work for me (yet). I have to tickle the peculiarities (of nature) out of me, to find them. Discovery is a different road (=path, =method, =sequence), from explaining them (=discoveries, =discovering). (They are opposite (=reversed, sentence) structures.)

Light_speed c (evidence) depends on direction, &/or source. Hm? Sounds ok. I guess you missed the style, it's in phrases (usually), only occationally word by word. (Too often I over_do it.) Best would be a bi_phrase like the midevil mine song; but the (single) "phrasal" (structure) similarity is too obvious for me to ignore (instead of the bi_ phrases). John Cuthber topped me (=my style), he was almost perfect with 3 count phrases. It blew me away because it was so nice (almost perfect). Compliment, to John, we love ya. (=Mega_In!) At least that style. You were talking right at me! +1 He grasped it, (sorry) you didn't. (If you master what he did=accomplished, (then) you've got it!) He did it (=copying me, =my style) better than me. I'm still looking for the perfect ((inspiring) writing) style (because I can't stand my own stuff anyway); he probably found it. I write anti_climatic, exhausting themes til they are NOT interesting (anymore), because (life)time is precious. Priority_wise. That doesn't always work well. I.e. Hardly.