1 hour 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.

As is the jiffy. Not special.

A femtosecond? Much more special.

A Planck time? We believe that to be so special that it doesn't even make sense to talk about a fraction of it.

A king's foot is not a special measure of length either.

You seem to have a problem understanding what I mean by "special". The time it takes a photon to go through a proton is the same everywhere in the universe, because photons and protons are the same everywhere. An alien from Alpha Centauri would immediately understand the relevance of that unit of time, but would have a much harder time understanding what you mean by a second. You could tell them it's the inverse of a certain number of times the frequency of a certain transition energy of caesium. But why exactly that number of times would be a mystery to them. Unless you told them about a place called Earth and a people called the Babylonians. The second is a convention.

44 minutes ago, joigus said:

The time it takes a photon to go through a proton is the same everywhere in the universe,

Everywhere in the universe?...what about near a black hole and a way from a black hole?

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

You seem to have a problem understanding what I mean by "special".

My point is that standardization is important... however it's done.

5 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Everywhere in the universe?...what about near a black hole and a way from a black hole?

Both the proton's proper length and the speed of light are GR invariants, as I'm sure you know. Or do you?

Are you trying to catch me? 🤣

I'm getting tired of this rambling...

3 hours 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.

Yes, a point of reference. Agreed upon, for convenience. But not special.

I can describe a duration with any number of units if time, but the duration is the same.

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

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?.

Because action is not energy.

In the example of a constant KE with PE=0, the action would be KE*t, which is linearly increasing with time.

You even gave an example that clearly showed that the action would increase in magnitude over time!

But you keep confidently posting as if you know what you’re talking about, and the evidence is that you don’t, at least not at a depth consistent with your confidence. Here, you clearly don’t understand what action is, but are posting like you do.

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I think misunderstanding should not be labeled as flaw.

I think you should stop taking all of this personally. Misunderstanding something simply means your knowledge is flawed, so you shouldn't try to build upon it until you fix it. People do this every day without thinking it means THEY are flawed.

6 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm getting tired of this rambling...

Why are you cherry picking my questions? Pliz answer this;

9 hours ago, joigus said:

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

This statement is disturbing me...whose statement is it? Yours or mine? Or rather who implied that ? 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.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Because action is not energy.

Action is not energy,true. what am saying is that they can have the same value consistently over time only to be distinguished by their units.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

In the example of a constant KE with PE=0, the action would be KE*t, which is linearly increasing with 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?.

Let's have this example..the particle has an intrinsic energy of 1*10^-64 j...what will it's action after free falling for;

1- one second

2-two munites

3-a billion years

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

This statement is disturbing me...whose statement is it? Yours or mine? Or rather who implied that ? 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.

You did.

“My question is simple can michelson-morley type experiment be able to detect a particle with an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J or a stream of such particles @ 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹”

A stream of particles, you used units of J-s. Flux implies a rate, i.e. an energy per unit time. You did not identify this as the action. If you had, you would have been asked what the action has to do with the problem.

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?

L = KE-PE = 1/2 mv^2 - mgh and the action is the time integral of the Lagrangian. KE increases in free fall, and PE gets smaller as h decreases.

Even if L were constant, as with the example I gave above, the integral still gives you a factor of time.

I am going to have one last try here.

I am going to tell you a true story that I have personal experience of.

Personal attacks on others are counterproductive.

Not only because they antagonise these others but also because they leave the attacker without having reached their objective of gaining further knowledge and understanding.

Before AI, before Google and nearly before the internet itself, part of my wife's professional training was undertaken at the world famous Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, in London.
Whilst she was there there was a real panic on because serious cracks had appeared in the reinforced concrete structure of a brand new building they had just moved into,
The cracks were serious enough that everyone, staff and patients, had to be moved out and the building knocked down and rebuilt.

The inquiry found that the designers had cut corners, not properly understanding reinforced concrete, and designated the design to junior technicians who looked up inappropriate formulae for the design.

Even in those days it was easy to look up formulae that the seeker did not properly understand and so would misapply it.
Today with AI, Google and the whole nine yards of the world wide web it is all too easy to think you can just look something up and use it without properly understanding it.

Don't do it. History is littered with spectacular blunders by people who did this.

OK so back to this thread.

You posted a perfectly good correct physics statement to which I responded.

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

My question is simple can michelson-morley type experiment be able to detect a particle with an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J or a stream of such particles @ 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Discuss....My intake is NO.

Now energy is a tricky thing because it is an abstract concept it is non material.

Here is a simple example.

What is the difference between a bag of 5 apples and a bag of 3 apples

Answer 2 apples.

But the 'difference between' is an abstract concept.

It is not a property of either bag.

and you can introduce complications to this by offering that the apples in the first bag are smaller than the apples in the second so the weight of apples is the same, and many more complications besides.

Energy is something like this.

One of these complications for energy is that energy is frame dependent.

And you did not specify measurement frame.

You need to do this because you also referenced a stream of such particles which must, by definition be moving.

But motion, and that all important property velocity is relative to something.

So when I said that you need to supply more information, so that we could work through the necessary calculations together, all I got back was.

On 8/15/2025 at 7:25 PM, MJ kihara said:

On 8/15/2025 at 5:55 PM, 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 12:50 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.

Where you not only tried to order me about, like a petulant dictator, you changed the wording of your original statemnt to incorrect physics.

There is no such thing as a particle of energy.

Energy is not a substance, it does not have particles.

Particles have mass and that allows particles to have energy.

That not so subtle difference had led you to try to force the application of the wrong formulae like the hospital building designers I mentioned.

You must have quite a bit more information about your scenario to be able to make sensible predictive calculations.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

a stream of such particles @ 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

What is your interpretation of the above statement... surely why are you ignoring symbol @ ? then you imply what I meant if ...I should have been asked to clarify...I never implied a Flux...I meant the action of each particular particle moving along with other particles of the same action....

9 hours ago, swansont said:

KE increases in free fall,

Does a photon have kinetic energy?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

But motion, and that all important property velocity is relative to something.

Atleast thanks for stating this coz have been talking of intrinsic energy and proper time... however majority of members just ignore this fact...

What am saying is that if you has such a particle it's energy value will always equate to it's Action the difference will be units.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Particles have mass and that allows particles to have energy.

A photon is considered a particle... of course there is particles-wave duality arguments....it's massless...it's energy is in momentum.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Energy is not a substance, it does not have particles.

I well understand that, more so since am bound by mainstream arguments esp in this thread..

1 hour ago, studiot said:

That not so subtle difference had led you to try to force the application of the wrong formulae

Am not forcing anything...my argument is that there is a unique situation where Energy and Action have consistently the same value,the only difference is on the units used to express them...that unique situation is the one members are not get...but rather condemn me of being wrong and not wanting corrections.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Where you not only tried to order me about

Am sorry if it appeared like that but that was not my intention.

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

What is your interpretation of the above statement... surely why are you ignoring symbol @ ? then you imply what I meant if ...I should have been asked to clarify...I never implied a Flux...I meant the action of each particular particle moving along with other particles of the same action....

I interpreted @ to mean “at” as in, “at a rate of” and you said “a stream of such particles” which does imply just that.

You may not have meant to imply a flux, but you did imply it with the phrasing.

By trying to spin it this way and not admit an error, you further damage your credibility and now have to come up with an explanation for how it makes any sense for you to bring up action, and how a stream of particles can be described this way.

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Does a photon have kinetic energy?

All of a photon’s energy is kinetic, but we have other equations to describe it as opposed to massive particles.

And yes, a photon will increase its energy if falling into a gravity well, but I wasn’t discussing photons, as the equations clearly indicate.

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Atleast thanks for stating this coz have been talking of intrinsic energy and proper time... however majority of members just ignore this fact...

You didn’t bring up intrinsic energy until about one day ago, 37 posts into the discussion. Not sure why proper time has any impact on the topic, and similarly, it only came up in the last 24 hours.

And that’s one of the problems - your discussion jumps all over the place. The topic is the Michelson-Morley experiment and whether a certain energy particle could be detected. All the rest is you trying to revise history to cover for either a unit error or a really badly-worded description, and trying to bring other irrelevant topics up.

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

All the rest is you trying to revise history to cover for either a unit error or a really badly-worded description, and trying to bring other irrelevant topics up.

This supports what I've suspected, that the OP feels that flaws reflect on them personally, so they avoid any admission of being wrong about anything. They have trouble separating themselves from their idea, and it affects the way they learn. It's unfortunate, since making mistakes is part of the learning process.

There must be a lot of misunderstanding going around.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

By trying to spin it this way and not admit an error

I haven't changed my arguments, am providing more clarification to what I meant.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

interpreted @ to mean “at” as in, “at a rate of” and you said “a stream of such particles” which does imply just that.

...my intention of using it, is to mean each at...e.g a stream of such particles @ 1×10^−64 J⋅Hz^−1 meaning that if their were ten particles, forming a system, the action of that system, therefore ,would be 10 * 1* 10^-64 j.Hz^-1.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You didn’t bring up intrinsic energy until about one day ago, 37 posts into the discussion. Not sure why proper time has any impact on the topic, and similarly, it only came up in the last 24 hours.

All this was a response to clarify what I was thinking..if the discussion never went further I could have assumed my thinking was clear and stopped there and then.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And yes, a photon will increase its energy if falling into a gravity well, but I wasn’t discussing photons, as the equations clearly indicate.

Somewhere in thread I said free falling in a vacuum away from external influences.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

KE increases in free fall

1 hour ago, swansont said:

All of a photon’s energy is kinetic, but we have other equations to describe it as opposed to massive particles.

going with your argument the energy of free falling photon(massless particle) would be increasing linearly to infinity...that's wrong.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The topic is the Michelson-Morley experiment and whether a certain energy particle could be detected. All the rest is you trying to revise history to cover for either a unit error or a really badly-worded description, and trying to bring other irrelevant topics up.

The topic had a unit of energy and unit of action...I have been trying to clarify why I bundled them together....and as is evident in thread the discussion is a heated one..I haven't run a way, because I would like the issue looked at thoroughly to make sure we leave no stone unturned.

54 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

avoid any admission of being wrong

In science you have to be convinced you are wrong...someone can't just tell you,you are wrong then you say;okay well am wrong....it the same urge that makes some want to learn more.

Since I was ambushed I have read and reread several times articles of action and principle of action/stationary action,to try to see where is there that am being told am wrong...a good example is what studiot said;

7 hours ago, studiot said:

But motion, and that all important property velocity is relative to something.

It's appropriate..I talked about intrinsic energy and proper time.

To just add something important...all this argument of energy and time ...units of time and action and how they are related and my reasoning goes to the core of time translation symmetry and conservation of energy..if am not wrong.

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

There must be a lot of misunderstanding going around.

I haven't changed my arguments, am providing more clarification to what I meant.

But you were implying your arguments were clear, and they weren’t

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

...my intention of using it, is to mean each at...e.g a stream of such particles @ 1×10^−64 J⋅Hz^−1 meaning that if their were ten particles, forming a system, the action of that system, therefore ,would be 10 * 1* 10^-64 j.Hz^-1.

And I will ask, ONCE AGAIN why the action is relevant for a M-M experiment

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Somewhere in thread I said free falling in a vacuum away from external influences.

Since the posts are disjointed and not complete or consistent, there’s no reason to think one part applies to any other. Freely falling implies a gravitational field, so you are not away from external influences.

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

going with your argument the energy of free falling photon(massless particle) would be increasing linearly to infinity...that's wrong.

Since I never said anything about the energy increasing linearly or to infinity, I don’t see how that relates to me. And I wasn’t talking about a photon until later (and still did not say linearly to infinity)

You had asked about a particle with an intrinsic nonzero energy, which is not a photon, and I gave you the formula. If you want an equation you are free to do the math yourself. It’s some simple kinematics and a basic integral.

Any you often say particle, which implies not a photon. When you want to talk about a photon you should specify it, since the equations are different.

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

The topic had a unit of energy and unit of action...I have been trying to clarify why I bundled them together....and as is evident in thread the discussion is a heated one..I haven't run a way, because I would like the issue looked at thoroughly to make sure we leave no stone unturned.

But you haven’t made this connection.

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

In science you have to be convinced you are wrong...someone can't just tell you,you are wrong then you say;okay well am wrong....it the same urge that makes some want to learn more.

When people who understand physics say you’re wrong, you at least have to provisionally accept this, and try and understand the explanation.

To conclude why I opened this thread or my intention of posing the question in the OP;

Is that there is a unique situation where Energy and Action have consistently the same value,the only difference is on the units used to express them...the particle am taking about has this unique property of having an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J and an action of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹ ....and that this individual particle can not be detected by Michelson-Morley type experiment... therefore this kind of a particle is unique.

46 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

To conclude why I opened this thread or my intention of posing the question in the OP;

Is that there is a unique situation where Energy and Action have consistently the same value,the only difference is on the units used to express them...the particle am taking about has this unique property of having an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J and an action of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹ ....and that this individual particle can not be detected by Michelson-Morley type experiment... therefore this kind of a particle is unique.

But it does not have that action except under one very specific condition (at rest, and your duration is exactly 1 sec) and action is not an intrinsic property much less a unique one. So you can’t say it consistently has this value.

Also not being detectable by M-M is not unique if we are considering hypothetical particles.

Also, it occurs to me that this new insistence that the energy is the intrinsic energy (mass) changes things quite drastically. As I had laid out, I assumed a photon since you had not offered the scenario of a hypothetical particle. But a massive particle has kinetic energy and momentum, and if it has a sufficient amount, the wavelength will be significantly shorter, this allowing interference fringes to potentially be seen.

(and it’s interesting that I said photon but you didn’t correct me, despite your later claim that you were talking about an intrinsic energy)

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

The topic had a unit of energy and unit of action..

Absolutely not.

You did not mention action, until well after exchemist did.

The product joule.hertz^{-1 i}s not a 'unit of action', any more that the inverse of hertz is seconds.

Action refers to a particular process not an object and unless that process is cyclic the product joule.hertz^-1 is meaningless.

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

All this was a response to clarify what I was thinking..if the discussion never went further I could have assumed my thinking was clear and stopped there and then.

What a good idea.

I respectfully suggest and request that this thread be stopped here and now as it is not achieving anything

6 hours ago, swansont said:

But it does not have that action except under one very specific condition (at rest, and your duration is exactly 1 sec) and action is not an intrinsic property much less a unique one. So you can’t say it consistently has this value.

....mmmm....I talked about a unique situation...are you threaten by the term unique...use specific if that's comfortable with you ....at rest? how many times in this thread have I mentioned free fall away from external influence, gravity influence everything, however,in a constant gravitational field, a free fall and at rest is one and the same thing.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Also not being detectable by M-M is not unique if we are considering hypothetical particles.

I'm the one who posted this thread...I wanted to brought this issue to the forum members and any other person who has been reading my posts and following my threads...

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Also, it occurs to me that this new insistence that the energy is the intrinsic energy (mass) changes things quite drastically.

It's not new to me...it's new to you because I brought it up as part of clarification later on in the thread...does it change things drastically...Yes...as per the discussion going around in this thread...am i required to make more clarification on it ?..You being the moderator you will say it's out of OP...you have an upper hand.. However,I have more than enough reason to clarify it but it's out of OP.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

But a massive particle has kinetic energy and momentum, and if it has a sufficient amount, the wavelength will be significantly shorter, this allowing interference fringes to potentially be seen.

Am talking of a particle that has a much much much much,and infact, much lower energy than CMB photon.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

(and it’s interesting that I said photon but you didn’t correct me, despite your later claim that you were talking about an intrinsic energy)

hahaha...😂...am learning to survive in this forum... nothing wrong with that... again it's good to let discussion in the thread to have a natural flow.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

You did not mention action, until well after exchemist did.

I don't understand your perspective with the way am handling things in this thread..you are almost saying am not the OP...

5 hours ago, studiot said:

The product joule.hertz^{-1 i}s not a 'unit of action', any more that the inverse of hertz is seconds.

Wikipedia is in public domain if you want,you can make correction on it.

Planck's constant is a quantum of action and its given as; 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

don't you see the units that they have used.

From Wikipedia Planck's constant article;

".....Dimension and value

The Planck constant has the same dimensions as action and as angular momentum (both with unit J·s = kg·m2·s−1). The Planck constant is fixed at h=6.62607015×10^−34 J⋅Hz^−1[4] as part of the definition of the SI units.[32] Alternatively, if the radian were considered a base unit, then h would have the dimension of action (unit J·s), while ℏ would have the dimension of angular momentum (unit J·s·rad−1), instead...."

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Action refers to a particular process not an object and unless that process is cyclic the product joule.hertz^-1 is meaningless.

Once again am bound by mainstream stream arguments and OP in this thread... otherwise,I could have brought the issue of cyclic process that has made me stick with the arguments of action and this 'unique' particle am talking about...and of course those arguments being not mainstream as per this era...people around could shout at me and say it's outrageous and accuse me of being outlandish.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

I respectfully suggest and request that this thread be stopped here now.

If so let it be so...Well and good...It won't shut me from having a deep thinking about nature...I will ever keep asking my self why?..why?..why?..as long as am normal...stick to the mainstream and scrutinize what's outside...

5 hours ago, studiot said:

as it is not achieving anything

That is as per your perspective...As for me it has achieved a lot,more than I can appreciate.....mmmm...

"....One small step for man,one giant leap for mankind...Neil Armstrong"

Again "..Aluta continua.. " for me figuring things out in nature is a struggle ...and the fight has to go on...

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

To conclude why I opened this thread or my intention of posing the question in the OP;

Is that there is a unique situation where Energy and Action have consistently the same value,the only difference is on the units used to express them...the particle am taking about has this unique property of having an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J and an action of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹ ....and that this individual particle can not be detected by Michelson-Morley type experiment... therefore this kind of a particle is unique.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

I am going to have one last try here.

I am going to tell you a true story that I have personal experience of.

Personal attacks on others are counterproductive.

Not only because they antagonise these others but also because they leave the attacker without having reached their objective of gaining further knowledge and understanding.

Before AI, before Google and nearly before the internet itself, part of my wife's professional training was undertaken at the world famous Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, in London.
Whilst she was there there was a real panic on because serious cracks had appeared in the reinforced concrete structure of a brand new building they had just moved into,
The cracks were serious enough that everyone, staff and patients, had to be moved out and the building knocked down and rebuilt.

The inquiry found that the designers had cut corners, not properly understanding reinforced concrete, and designated the design to junior technicians who looked up inappropriate formulae for the design.

Even in those days it was easy to look up formulae that the seeker did not properly understand and so would misapply it.
Today with AI, Google and the whole nine yards of the world wide web it is all too easy to think you can just look something up and use it without properly understanding it.

Don't do it. History is littered with spectacular blunders by people who did this.

OK so back to this thread.

You posted a perfectly good correct physics statement to which I responded.

Now energy is a tricky thing because it is an abstract concept it is non material.

Here is a simple example.

What is the difference between a bag of 5 apples and a bag of 3 apples

Answer 2 apples.

But the 'difference between' is an abstract concept.

It is not a property of either bag.

and you can introduce complications to this by offering that the apples in the first bag are smaller than the apples in the second so the weight of apples is the same, and many more complications besides.

Energy is something like this.

One of these complications for energy is that energy is frame dependent.

And you did not specify measurement frame.

You need to do this because you also referenced a stream of such particles which must, by definition be moving.

But motion, and that all important property velocity is relative to something.

So when I said that you need to supply more information, so that we could work through the necessary calculations together, all I got back was.

Where you not only tried to order me about, like a petulant dictator, you changed the wording of your original statemnt to incorrect physics.

There is no such thing as a particle of energy.

Energy is not a substance, it does not have particles.

Particles have mass and that allows particles to have energy.

That not so subtle difference had led you to try to force the application of the wrong formulae like the hospital building designers I mentioned.

You must have quite a bit more information about your scenario to be able to make sensible predictive calculations.

Brilliant points here, including the story.

Indeed, energy is frame-dependent. Although I must say, at this point I'm not sure if we're talking about an energy, an action, or a number of particles. The concepts seem to be flailing about.

10 hours ago, studiot said:

Absolutely not.

You did not mention action, until well after exchemist did.

The product joule.hertz^{-1 i}s not a 'unit of action', any more that the inverse of hertz is seconds.

Action refers to a particular process not an object and unless that process is cyclic the product joule.hertz^-1 is meaningless.

What a good idea.

I respectfully suggest and request that this thread be stopped here and now as it is not achieving anything

Yes, I now rather regret having introduced action into the discussion. Because, instead of simply acknowledging a typo or error in the units of his OP - an innocent mistake anyone can make - he has seized instead on the red herring of action and tried, absurdly, to pretend that is what he meant all along, even though it makes no sense whatever in this context, digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by exchemist

This is a 3 page thread that should have been 2 posts.

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

My question is simple can michelson-morley type experiment be able to detect a particle with an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J or a stream of such particles @ 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Discuss....My intake is NO.

On 8/12/2025 at 2:01 AM, swansont said:

They’d be massless (or some new particle with a vanishingly small mass)

So, what is the wavelength of such a photon?

hc/E is around 2 x 10^38 m

A LY is 10^16 m, so 2 x 10^22 LY

To get destructive interference you need a path length difference of half a wavelength. Seeing as this is much, much longer than the size of the visible universe, I’m guessing no. Plus the time it would take to run the experiment.

The contrast you get with a reasonable size interferometer would be vanishingly small

Not sure of your units. J/Hz? Did you mean J/s?

Why don't we all stop here, and pretend that it was?


The question (in spite of a typo) was fully answered in the first reply.

One underlying aspect that I notice here and elsewhere is a fundamental misappreciation of duality so I have posted a new thread to discuss this.

Since the phenomenon applies to Science more generally I have posted in Other Sciences.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

absurdly, to pretend that is what he meant all along,

What's up with you.... don't bring your weird issues to me and the thread i opened.. I don't paraphrase your issues like you do....open your thread on action( since the year began how many threads have you opened in the forum?)...pliz stop the nonsense...I had a thread I highly esteemed Parameter of a theory of everything...if you have been in this forum and happened to have looked at that thread ...you could know better where that value and units came from(this is out of this OP)...just open your thread on action as simple as that...

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole.

You are the one in a hole...just update your comprehension.

51 minutes ago, studiot said:

elsewhere is a fundamental misappreciation of duality so I have posted a new thread to discuss this.

What you are doing is wrong,you rubbish My reasoning..then advertise your thread in my thread... that's totally wrong whatever you say.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Why don't we all stop here, and pretend that it was?

They get irritated by clarification...they just want boneheads to lecture around without an questioning...

Once again;-

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

....mmmm....I talked about a unique situation...are you threaten by the term unique...use specific if that's comfortable with you ....at rest? how many times in this thread have I mentioned free fall away from external influence, gravity influence everything, however,in a constant gravitational field, a free fall and at rest is one and the same thing.

I'm the one who posted this thread...I wanted to brought this issue to the forum members and any other person who has been reading my posts and following my threads...

It's not new to me...it's new to you because I brought it up as part of clarification later on in the thread...does it change things drastically...Yes...as per the discussion going around in this thread...am i required to make more clarification on it ?..You being the moderator you will say it's out of OP...you have an upper hand.. However,I have more than enough reason to clarify it but it's out of OP.

Am talking of a particle that has a much much much much,and infact, much lower energy than CMB photon.

hahaha...😂...am learning to survive in this forum... nothing wrong with that... again it's good to let discussion in the thread to have a natural flow.

I don't understand your perspective with the way am handling things in this thread..you are almost saying am not the OP...

Wikipedia is in public domain if you want,you can make correction on it.

Planck's constant is a quantum of action and its given as; 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

don't you see the units that they have used.

From Wikipedia Planck's constant article;

".....Dimension and value

The Planck constant has the same dimensions as action and as angular momentum (both with unit J·s = kg·m2·s−1). The Planck constant is fixed at h=6.62607015×10^−34 J⋅Hz^−1[4] as part of the definition of the SI units.[32] Alternatively, if the radian were considered a base unit, then h would have the dimension of action (unit J·s), while ℏ would have the dimension of angular momentum (unit J·s·rad−1), instead...."

Once again am bound by mainstream stream arguments and OP in this thread... otherwise,I could have brought the issue of cyclic process that has made me stick with the arguments of action and this 'unique' particle am talking about...and of course those arguments being not mainstream as per this era...people around could shout at me and say it's outrageous and accuse me of being outlandish.

If so let it be so...Well and good...It won't shut me from having a deep thinking about nature...I will ever keep asking my self why?..why?..why?..as long as am normal...stick to the mainstream and scrutinize what's outside...

That is as per your perspective...As for me it has achieved a lot,more than I can appreciate.....mmmm...

"....One small step for man,one giant leap for mankind...Neil Armstrong"

Again "..Aluta continua.. " for me figuring things out in nature is a struggle ...and the fight has to go on...

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

....mmmm....I talked about a unique situation...are you threaten by the term unique...use specific if that's comfortable with you ....at rest? how many times in this thread have I mentioned free fall away from external influence, gravity influence everything, however,in a constant gravitational field, a free fall and at rest is one and the same thing.

I'm the one who posted this thread...I wanted to brought this issue to the forum members and any other person who has been reading my posts and following my threads...

It's not new to me...it's new to you because I brought it up as part of clarification later on in the thread...does it change things drastically...Yes...as per the discussion going around in this thread...am i required to make more clarification on it ?..You being the moderator you will say it's out of OP...you have an upper hand.. However,I have more than enough reason to clarify it but it's out of OP.

Am talking of a particle that has a much much much much,and infact, much lower energy than CMB photon.

hahaha...😂...am learning to survive in this forum... nothing wrong with that... again it's good to let discussion in the thread to have a natural flow.

I don't understand your perspective with the way am handling things in this thread..you are almost saying am not the OP...

Wikipedia is in public domain if you want,you can make correction on it.

Planck's constant is a quantum of action and its given as; 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

don't you see the units that they have used.

From Wikipedia Planck's constant article;

".....Dimension and value

The Planck constant has the same dimensions as action and as angular momentum (both with unit J·s = kg·m2·s−1). The Planck constant is fixed at h=6.62607015×10^−34 J⋅Hz^−1[4] as part of the definition of the SI units.[32] Alternatively, if the radian were considered a base unit, then h would have the dimension of action (unit J·s), while ℏ would have the dimension of angular momentum (unit J·s·rad−1), instead...."

Once again am bound by mainstream stream arguments and OP in this thread... otherwise,I could have brought the issue of cyclic process that has made me stick with the arguments of action and this 'unique' particle am talking about...and of course those arguments being not mainstream as per this era...people around could shout at me and say it's outrageous and accuse me of being outlandish.

If so let it be so...Well and good...It won't shut me from having a deep thinking about nature...I will ever keep asking my self why?..why?..why?..as long as am normal...stick to the mainstream and scrutinize what's outside...

That is as per your perspective...As for me it has achieved a lot,more than I can appreciate.....mmmm...

"....One small step for man,one giant leap for mankind...Neil Armstrong"

Again "..Aluta continua.. " for me figuring things out in nature is a struggle ...and the fight has to go on...

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

....mmmm....I talked about a unique situation...are you threaten by the term unique...use specific if that's comfortable with you ....at rest? how many times in this thread have I mentioned free fall away from external influence, gravity influence everything, however,in a constant gravitational field, a free fall and at rest is one and the same thing.

I'm the one who posted this thread...I wanted to brought this issue to the forum members and any other person who has been reading my posts and following my threads...

It's not new to me...it's new to you because I brought it up as part of clarification later on in the thread...does it change things drastically...Yes...as per the discussion going around in this thread...am i required to make more clarification on it ?..You being the moderator you will say it's out of OP...you have an upper hand.. However,I have more than enough reason to clarify it but it's out of OP.

Am talking of a particle that has a much much much much,and infact, much lower energy than CMB photon.

hahaha...😂...am learning to survive in this forum... nothing wrong with that... again it's good to let discussion in the thread to have a natural flow.

I don't understand your perspective with the way am handling things in this thread..you are almost saying am not the OP...

Wikipedia is in public domain if you want,you can make correction on it.

Planck's constant is a quantum of action and its given as; 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

don't you see the units that they have used.

From Wikipedia Planck's constant article;

".....Dimension and value

The Planck constant has the same dimensions as action and as angular momentum (both with unit J·s = kg·m2·s−1). The Planck constant is fixed at h=6.62607015×10^−34 J⋅Hz^−1[4] as part of the definition of the SI units.[32] Alternatively, if the radian were considered a base unit, then h would have the dimension of action (unit J·s), while ℏ would have the dimension of angular momentum (unit J·s·rad−1), instead...."

Once again am bound by mainstream stream arguments and OP in this thread... otherwise,I could have brought the issue of cyclic process that has made me stick with the arguments of action and this 'unique' particle am talking about...and of course those arguments being not mainstream as per this era...people around could shout at me and say it's outrageous and accuse me of being outlandish.

If so let it be so...Well and good...It won't shut me from having a deep thinking about nature...I will ever keep asking my self why?..why?..why?..as long as am normal...stick to the mainstream and scrutinize what's outside...

That is as per your perspective...As for me it has achieved a lot,more than I can appreciate.....mmmm...

"....One small step for man,one giant leap for mankind...Neil Armstrong"

Again "..Aluta continua.. " for me figuring things out in nature is a struggle ...and the fight has to go on...

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

....mmmm....I talked about a unique situation...are you threaten by the term unique...use specific if that's comfortable with you ....at rest? how many times in this thread have I mentioned free fall away from external influence, gravity influence everything, however,in a constant gravitational field, a free fall and at rest is one and the same thing.

I'm the one who posted this thread...I wanted to brought this issue to the forum members and any other person who has been reading my posts and following my threads...

It's not new to me...it's new to you because I brought it up as part of clarification later on in the thread...does it change things drastically...Yes...as per the discussion going around in this thread...am i required to make more clarification on it ?..You being the moderator you will say it's out of OP...you have an upper hand.. However,I have more than enough reason to clarify it but it's out of OP.

Am talking of a particle that has a much much much much,and infact, much lower energy than CMB photon.

hahaha...😂...am learning to survive in this forum... nothing wrong with that... again it's good to let discussion in the thread to have a natural flow.

I don't understand your perspective with the way am handling things in this thread..you are almost saying am not the OP...

Wikipedia is in public domain if you want,you can make correction on it.

Planck's constant is a quantum of action and its given as; 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

don't you see the units that they have used.

From Wikipedia Planck's constant article;

".....Dimension and value

The Planck constant has the same dimensions as action and as angular momentum (both with unit J·s = kg·m2·s−1). The Planck constant is fixed at h=6.62607015×10^−34 J⋅Hz^−1[4] as part of the definition of the SI units.[32] Alternatively, if the radian were considered a base unit, then h would have the dimension of action (unit J·s), while ℏ would have the dimension of angular momentum (unit J·s·rad−1), instead...."

Once again am bound by mainstream stream arguments and OP in this thread... otherwise,I could have brought the issue of cyclic process that has made me stick with the arguments of action and this 'unique' particle am talking about...and of course those arguments being not mainstream as per this era...people around could shout at me and say it's outrageous and accuse me of being outlandish.

If so let it be so...Well and good...It won't shut me from having a deep thinking about nature...I will ever keep asking my self why?..why?..why?..as long as am normal...stick to the mainstream and scrutinize what's outside...

That is as per your perspective...As for me it has achieved a lot,more than I can appreciate.....mmmm...

"....One small step for man,one giant leap for mankind...Neil Armstrong"

Again "..Aluta continua.. " for me figuring things out in nature is a struggle ...and the fight has to go on...

Again and again....

To conclude why I opened this thread or my intention of posing the question in the OP;

Is that there is a unique situation where Energy and Action have consistently the same value,the only difference is on the units used to express them...the particle am taking about has this unique property of having an energy of 1×10−64 J and an action of 1×10−64 J⋅Hz−1 ....and that this individual particle can not be detected by Michelson-Morley type experiment... therefore this kind of a particle is unique.

6 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

They get irritated by clarification

No, I think you are greatly misunderstanding the situation. Clarification is clearing up ambiguities and responding to questions if people have them. But your “clarification” here doesn’t pass the smell test.

I answered using an analysis using a photon, and you didn’t “clarify” that this was a massive particle until much later. I questioned your units and you didn’t “clarify” that it was action until much later. Both of those should have been immediate. And the single particle example did not have these units. All the other added information didn’t have any obvious connection to the OP - you never clarified how it was relevant.

So this looks a lot less like clarification and more like you changing the conditions of the problem. One reason that’s not well-received is that it means people wasted their time trying to help you. Not a good thing when you want feedback from them.

There have been multiple requests to close this and I agree.