1 hour ago, joigus said:

joules)x(seconds) is not an energy.

I did I say that?...it becomes an energy when your dealing with one second.... substitute one second then tell us what you get?

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I have. Several times. Others have too. What's the use? It's obvious you don't understand elementary physics

Being ambiguous is not an answer...why are you referring to others..the question was specifically directed to you...'others' is not an answer.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

If and when you are ready to discuss the calculation like an adult I am happy to explain further.

given a particle of energy

On 8/12/2025 at 2:50 AM, MJ kihara said:

1×10⁻⁶⁴ J

What's it's mass?....what childish game is there? What other information do you require to convert that to mass?.....I told you to use speed of light.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

elementary physics.

You are talking of elementary physics...I'm realizing you have a serious problem with internalizing physics concepts...may I ask you, your qualification on physics? not in bad faith.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

It is actually impossible to calculate the mass of this particle since you have omitted some information, that I asked for.

Is there any other way apart from...E=mc^2..you have energy and speed of light is a constant? What else do you require?

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

let me give you a clue

How about not.

If you want to discuss something or ask a question present it, but no tap-dancing, please.

If you had said that, no, the energy is simply kinetic energy then my answer would still be no. The wavelength/size argument would still likely apply, but then you’d have a thermal distribution of the particles to worry about, which would wash out the fringes.

Detection of the particles is another huge problem, but the specific reference to M-M puts the focus on interference.

Is the OP sufficiently addressed?

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

I did I say that?...it becomes an energy when your dealing with one second

It most certainly does not.

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Being ambiguous is not an answer...why are you referring to others..the question was specifically directed to you...'others' is not an answer.

How about you answer the questions, given that this is your speculation?

Don't worry about my qualifications or my mental health. Worry about your arguments, that should be more than enough to go by. I won't get ad hominem with you either.

You cannot stick t=one second in a formula defining a physical law and expect it to mean anything. One second is only relevant in the Solar System because it's a convenient fraction of earthly cycles, and because the Babilonians loved to chop up time in as many parts as to have many convenient small divisors. That's why they loved the number 60. There's nothing special about one second.

The time it takes for a photon to go through a proton could be a relevant time.

The time it takes a photon to go through the classical electron radius could be a relevant time.

A Planck time could be a relevant time.

A second simply cannot be a relevant time in theoretical physics.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

You cannot stick t=one second in a formula defining a physical law and expect it to mean anything. One second is only relevant in the Solar System because it's a convenient fraction of earthly cycles, and because the Babilonians loved to chop up time in as many parts as to have many convenient small divisors. That's why they loved the number 60. There's nothing special about one second.

The time it takes for a photon to go through a proton could be a relevant time.

The time it takes a photon to go through the classical electron radius could be a relevant time.

A Planck time could be a relevant time.

A second simply cannot be a relevant time in theoretical physics.

You can, of course, normalize a rate per any arbitrary unit of time. The amount of charge per unit of time being a current, the amount of work done per unit of time being power, the distance traveled per unit of time being speed, etc.

Then when you multiply by an elapsed time, you get a meaningful result.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You can, of course, normalize a rate per any arbitrary unit of time. The amount of charge per unit of time being a current, the amount of work done per unit of time being power, the distance traveled per unit of time being speed, etc.

Then when you multiply by an elapsed time, you get a meaningful result.

Absolutely. I should have said something like, "You cannot stick t=one second in a formula defining a physical law and expect it to represent a fundamental constant."

That's what the OP is trying to argue, that this quantity built from Planck's constant times 1 second produces another universal constant. That's what's totally bollocks.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by joigus
minor addition

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's what the OP is trying to argue

Do use your luck of understanding to clarify the OP...I had realized earlier;

5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

...I'm realizing you have a serious problem with internalizing physics concepts...

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's what's totally bollocks

Your ranting doesn't make you correct.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

One second is only relevant in the Solar System because it's a convenient fraction of earthly cycles, and because the Babilonians loved to chop up time in as many parts as to have many convenient small divisors. That's why they loved the number 60. There's nothing special about one second.

This is tantamount to soapboxing...your are becoming a preacher...you are pretending to defend science and yet you don't know the importance of standardization of units...are you not aware of Caesium atomic clock?

27 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's what the OP is trying to argue

Don't use your lack of understanding to clarify the OP...I had realized earlier;

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

...I'm realizing you have a serious problem with internalizing physics concepts.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

How about not.

If you want to discuss something or ask a question present it, but no tap-dancing, please.

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Please explain why you have chosen this particular energy and since it refers to a particle, which particle since that makes a differnce to how fast or slow the particle can be said to be moving.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Can someone tell me how my honest attempt to take the OP seriously and make a start on answering his question is offensive ?

7 hours ago, studiot said:

I have no interest in playing childish games.

I fail to understand the relevance of your questions to OP...esp since you are leaving important fundamental questions unanswered...stop asking questions that leads tap-dancing.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Is the OP sufficiently addressed?

The first part of question;Michelson-Morley type experiment if it's able to detect such a particle..the answer is overwhelming No...as I had stated earlier..

Though you have brought up this issue;

4 hours ago, swansont said:

but then you’d have a thermal distribution of the particles to worry about

The kind of energy am talking about is very very little unimaginably little..10^-64 j....if you start to think about renormalization and the Planck's constant things start to make sense.. otherwise this argument is out of OP, therefore,I won't extend further than that.

Regarding;

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Is the OP sufficiently addressed?

The second part of the OP question involving units of action is the one being discussed, I don't think it has been sufficiently addressed in regard to the first part....

Is it possible to calculate the action of a single free falling particle,given it's energy is known?

Hahahaha...🤩🤗🥰....atleast atleast the forum has improved a little bit, you can see who is on your thread ...the negative marks....someone around holding ''personal vendetta" has been following me putting mad and cow dung in my threads inform of red negative marks...to that person DON'T BE JEALOUS! Open A thread and see I won't put such a shit there...such behavior is being uncivilized.

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

The kind of energy am talking about is very very little unimaginably little..10^-64 j....if you start to think about renormalization and the Planck's constant things start to make sense.. otherwise this argument is out of OP, therefore,I won't extend further than that.

What does either renormalization or Planck’s constant have to do with the Michelson-Morley experiment?

The fact that the energy is small is the problem. The thermal energy in the apparatus would be vastly greater, and you’d never see fringes.

5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

The second part of the OP question involving units of action is the one being discussed, I don't think it has been sufficiently addressed in regard to the first part....

Is it possible to calculate the action of a single free falling particle,given it's energy is known?

Fro Wikipedia;

When relativistic effects are significant, the action of a point particle of mass m travelling a world line C parametrized by the proper time τ is

The one second I was previously referring to in the thread is the proper time.

The more a I go through my thread and posts after Modred has not been around the more I appreciate how resourceful he was...I feel it's meaningless for a scientific forum to lack such kind of a person...some folks who appear conspicuous around just verbose...a lot of everything nonsensical,bullshit and bollocks...am feeling no progress can be made in such an environment....

Can someone tell me if Modred will be back in this forum?

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

The more a I go through my thread and posts after Modred has not been around the more I appreciate how resourceful he was...

Because he encouraged you to think?

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I feel it's meaningless for a scientific forum to lack such kind of a person...

Someone who doesn't try to correct your mistakes? There are lots of science forums where you can claim anything you like. Mordred won't be there.

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

some folks who appear conspicuous around just verbose...a lot of everything nonsensical,bullshit and bollocks...

It's difficult when you don't know something. It often makes the best explanations incomprehensible. Someone explains, you don't get it, and unfortunately you think you aren't the problem.

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

am feeling no progress can be made in such an environment....

As I said, there are lots of sites where people will tell you how great and smart and innovative your ideas are. If that's what you want, why don't you go to one of them?

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Can someone tell me if Modred will be back in this forum?

If I knew I wouldn't announce it, since that's his business, not mine or yours. Don't you think Mordred deserves his privacy?

My guess is that he needed a break from people rejecting mainstream physics.

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

.some folks who appear conspicuous around just verbose...a lot of everything nonsensical,bullshit and bollocks...

For them putting negative marks everywhere is easier than cracking their mental barrier; a barrier to being creative and inventive.

A good example is someone around who is vocal and thread blocker initiator that makes declarations that a second belong to Babylonians and it's of no need to modern physics and that a second is not relevant to theoretical physics, on top of that,to make things worse he is given a green mark for such nonsense...

15 hours ago, joigus said:

A second simply cannot be a relevant time in theoretical physics.

What is the purpose of a second in reduced Planck's constant ?... Such a so called ''respected member"...is arguing even against the seven fundamental units(base units) and he receives claps...what kind/level of hypocrisy is that?...speed of light being a constant makes the units of space and time interconvertible.... nothing wrong with normalizing units...if something has a constant energy every second no matter what you do to it ..you wait for ten years the same energy wait for a billion years the them energy..it's common sense to know that particular energy is intrinsic to that particular particle, therefore, for that particle' action including units of second as j.s or just writing energy units alone i.e j. Is one and the same thing...such common sense it's not common to someone without intuitive understanding of physics concepts.

20 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

For them putting negative marks everywhere is easier than cracking their mental barrier; a barrier to being creative and inventive.

A good example is someone around who is vocal and thread blocker initiator that makes declarations that a second belong to Babylonians and it's of no need to modern physics and that a second is not relevant to theoretical physics, on top of that,to make things worse he is given a green mark for such nonsense...

What is the purpose of a second in reduced Planck's constant ?... Such a so called ''respected member"...is arguing even against the seven fundamental units(base units) and he receives claps...what kind/level of hypocrisy is that?...speed of light being a constant makes the units of space and time interconvertible.... nothing wrong with normalizing units...if something has a constant energy every second no matter what you do to it ..you wait for ten years the same energy wait for a billion years the them energy..it's common sense to know that particular energy is intrinsic to that particular particle, therefore, for that particle' action including units of second as j.s or just writing energy units alone i.e j. Is one and the same thing...such common sense it's not common to someone without intuitive understanding of physics concepts.

If you wait for 10 years the action has increased rather a lot, because its dimensions are energy x time.

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

As I said, there are lots of sites where people will tell you how great and smart and innovative your ideas are. If that's what you want, why don't you go to one of them?

Can you give examples of such sites?...you seem to have visited them...the issue is not being against mainstream science....it about someone like Modred with a willing to engage from various angles...therefore,ending up giving proper guidance of where mainstream guardrails are.

Am not underrating other members but there seems to be a culture going around of encouraging verbose...giving lots of inconsistent terms, when someone start digging deeper to their verbose they use words to put dirt in someone's thread by using words like bollocks,colours of love,bullshits,shits..e.t.c..e.t.cc...while giving each other green positive marks,however,the point of discussion they give it negative red marks, are this words terms in physics?

Someone can't declare to be a senior member who dirt other people's thread...while year in year out can't open even a single thread to have other people chart/discuss...but feel entitled to dirt others thread and given a free hand on green/red reputation marks... that's hyperbolic.

11 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Am not underrating other members but there seems to be a culture going around of encouraging verbose...giving lots of inconsistent terms, when someone start digging deeper to their verbose they use words to put dirt in someone's thread by using words like bollocks,colours of love,bullshits,shits..e.t.c..e.t.cc...while giving each other green positive marks,however,the point of discussion they give it negative red marks, are this words terms in physics?

Units are a pretty basic concept, and if you aren’t getting that right, I don’t know how to fix it. Participating in a physics thread assumes some basic knowledge.

When you make claims that have no basis in physics, and just insist that you’re right, you’re going to get that kind of characterization. There isn’t even a bridge to mainstream physics to see where the misconception is and point it out, and you’re ignoring the corrections.

11 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Can you give examples of such sites?...you seem to have visited them...the issue is not being against mainstream science....it about someone like Modred with a willing to engage from various angles...therefore,ending up giving proper guidance of where mainstream guardrails are.

Am not underrating other members but there seems to be a culture going around of encouraging verbose...giving lots of inconsistent terms, when someone start digging deeper to their verbose they use words to put dirt in someone's thread by using words like bollocks,colours of love,bullshits,shits..e.t.c..e.t.cc...while giving each other green positive marks,however,the point of discussion they give it negative red marks, are this words terms in physics?

Someone can't declare to be a senior member who dirt other people's thread...while year in year out can't open even a single thread to have other people chart/discuss...but feel entitled to dirt others thread and given a free hand on green/red reputation marks... that's hyperbolic.

A stream, a flux of particles, etc, cannot be defined by a quantity with the units of J·s. Simple as that. I'm not the only one who's been shocked by your atrocious use of physical units. Then you pressed me to answer a question that makes no sense, due to that fundamental mistake. That's the reason for my analogy with a non-sensical question as "what is the colour of love?" This is a standard academic example of an ill-posed question.

I mentioned the Babylonians to try to make you understand there's nothing special about the second, while there's something universal about a Planck's time, or a femtosecond (a Fermi divided by the speed of light), etc. I was actually trying to save you many headaches. I find your lack of curiosity quite appalling, to be honest.

Then you started the ad hominem game to the point of being quite insulting. But you still haven't aswered any relevant questions concerning your idea.

It's never too late to start learning. Why not now?

33 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Can you give examples of such sites?...you seem to have visited them...

I don't have any, but several posters quote arguments made on such sites. I think the main problem is that, since it's mostly people who haven't taken any physics coursework, or hit a snag in their learning and started making stuff up, everyone has a different idea or explanation. You'll get people who think your idea is garbage compared to theirs, but you'll also get people who think you're a genius. You can focus only on the ones who don't give you any pushback.

38 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

the issue is not being against mainstream science....it about someone like Modred with a willing to engage from various angles...therefore,ending up giving proper guidance of where mainstream guardrails are.

The only difference I see here is your perspective on criticism. Mordred gives you "proper guidance" while keeping you on track with mainstream physics. Ultimately though, he's giving you the same critique as everyone else is, but is more willing to let you expand on your idea, hopefully so you can see the flaws better.

Most of the membership doesn't have much patience with people who haven't formally studied yet insist they have some new revelation. They probably feel like a person like that should be asking questions instead of telling us how it should be. I don't know what you do for a living, but imagine someone coming in with no experience and they start telling you how to do your job. What do you do when you know their ideas won't work because of things they don't know about the job? What if they keep insisting?

53 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Am not underrating other members but there seems to be a culture going around of encouraging verbose...giving lots of inconsistent terms, when someone start digging deeper to their verbose they use words to put dirt in someone's thread by using words like bollocks,colours of love,bullshits,shits..e.t.c..e.t.cc...while giving each other green positive marks,however,the point of discussion they give it negative red marks, are this words terms in physics?

Again, your perspective is flawed. Science needs precision in terminology. They seem "inconsistent" to you because you're just learning them. You use a word until you misuse it, then someone corrects you. You see this as dirtying your thread, but it's members trying to do what Mordred did. They only use strong words when you keep insisting on ignoring the mainstream explanations they're trying to give you. Same with the negative rep, it's because you keep insisting you're right while ignoring others. When you go outside accepted physics, be prepared to have some words used about you that are also outside accepted physics.

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I don't have any, but several posters quote arguments made on such sites. I think the main problem is that, since it's mostly people who haven't taken any physics coursework, or hit a snag in their learning and started making stuff up, everyone has a different idea or explanation. You'll get people who think your idea is garbage compared to theirs, but you'll also get people who think you're a genius. You can focus only on the ones who don't give you any pushback.

The only difference I see here is your perspective on criticism. Mordred gives you "proper guidance" while keeping you on track with mainstream physics. Ultimately though, he's giving you the same critique as everyone else is, but is more willing to let you expand on your idea, hopefully so you can see the flaws better.

Most of the membership doesn't have much patience with people who haven't formally studied yet insist they have some new revelation. They probably feel like a person like that should be asking questions instead of telling us how it should be. I don't know what you do for a living, but imagine someone coming in with no experience and they start telling you how to do your job. What do you do when you know their ideas won't work because of things they don't know about the job? What if they keep insisting?

Again, your perspective is flawed. Science needs precision in terminology. They seem "inconsistent" to you because you're just learning them. You use a word until you misuse it, then someone corrects you. You see this as dirtying your thread, but it's members trying to do what Mordred did. They only use strong words when you keep insisting on ignoring the mainstream explanations they're trying to give you. Same with the negative rep, it's because you keep insisting you're right while ignoring others. When you go outside accepted physics, be prepared to have some words used about you that are also outside accepted physics.

I'm glad I decided to let Phi speak for me.

+1

54 minutes ago, joigus said:

nothing special about the second

There is a lot pliz ...it's a unit of time that we agree upon...it's one of the base units... that's enough to make it special.

57 minutes ago, joigus said:

A stream, a flux of particles, etc, cannot be defined by a quantity with the units of J·s.

Your still paraphrasing may statements...what was the purpose of me using @ symbol?

2 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

There is a lot pliz ...it's a unit of time that we agree upon...it's one of the base units... that's enough to make it special.

Not special. Units can’t be special. Physics has to work regardless of the units we use. It’s one reason we look to unitless constants (e.g. fine structure) if we think there’s insight to be had

Just now, swansont said:

Physics has to work regardless of the units we use.

They are point of reference,that's why we communicate thousands of miles apart...otherwise everyone could have his own unit.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

If you wait for 10 years the action has increased rather a lot, because its dimensions are energy x time.

Clarify your point...if a point particle has an intrinsic energy for a certain fixed time...the particle is free falling tell us how it's action will be increasing with time?.

Don't dive to verbose before you answer the question.

The person who gave you a green mark...pliz to that person help him answer that question.

The fixed time am talking about is proper time.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

A stream, a flux of particles, etc, cannot be defined by a quantity with the units of J·s.

This statement is disturbing me...whose statement is it? Yours or mine? Can you provide evidence...as far as am concerned I said action of a particle the reason of using@...then it happens such particles are flowing together.

16 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

They are point of reference,that's why we communicate thousands of miles apart...otherwise everyone could have his own unit.

Clarify your point...if a point particle has an intrinsic energy for a certain fixed time...the particle is free falling tell us how it's action will be increasing with time?.

Don't dive to verbose before you answer the question.

I have told you: action has dimensions of energy x time. Its energy may be constant but its action won’t be. Because of the x time.

Action is a concept used in Lagrangian mechanics.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Again, your perspective is flawed.

I think misunderstanding should not be labeled as flaw.

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I have told you: action has dimensions of energy x time. Its energy may be constant but its action won’t be. Because of the x time.

Action has dimensions of energy*time..that is a known fact..

Answer my question how will it's action will be increasing? while it's energy is intrinsic and the time used is proper time free falling in a vacuum away from other external influences.

14 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

I think misunderstanding should not be labeled as flaw.

Action has dimensions of energy*time..that is a known fact..

Answer my question how will it's action will be increasing? while it's energy is intrinsic and the time used is proper time free falling in a vacuum away from other external influences.

Christ almighty.

I’m out. You are going on my Ignore list.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by exchemist

Just now, exchemist said:

Christ almighty.

I’m out.

mmmmm...the person who gave you the green positive mark should come and help you...where is that person

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Answer my question how will it's action will be increasing? while it's energy is intrinsic and the time used is proper time free falling in a vacuum away from other external influences.

Don't you see why I talked about Modred?