[jerrygg38 (OP)]

What is the relationship between meters and seconds in Einstein’s Relativity?
   As I was incorporating Einstein’s relativity into my new book “Relativity and the Dot-wave theory”, I realized that Einstein had produced a fundamental relationship between meters and seconds which is an important property of the universe.  Most of my studies have been the relationships between kilograms and coulombs and the interrelationship between the mechanical world and the electrical world. Yet Einstein added another relationship. From special relativity we get:
L = Lo [1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
   The length Lo shrinks as the velocity increases. In addition
T = To/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
   The time To dilates as the velocity increases.  Let us now look at the product of L and T:
L T = Lo To
  For any particle, the product of length times time is a constant. This is a conditional product in that it depends upon your initial value of Lo and To. This is similar to saying that special relativity depends upon the particular gravitational field at a point in space.
   We then see that the universe is built upon the relationship that
L/T = Velocity
L/T = C for photons.
   We also note that when Lo approaches zero, To approaches infinity.  Thus the universe is built upon the ratio of length and time being the speed of light C and the product of length and time being a constant.

[Colin2B]

Let us now look at the product of L and T:
L T = Lo To

If you look at the formulae you provided the same Lorentz transform is applied to both, so as you vary speed the length and time vary in proportion so L/Lo and T/To will automatically be a constant. If the relationship comes as a surprise to anyone it is a consequence of viewing time dilation and length contraction as separate phenomena.
We view the spaceperson as ageing more slowly, but from their perspective the distance to the destination is shorter so they take less time to complete the journey. We see the spaceship contracted, but this is because the time at the front and rear of the ship are not the same.

Thus the universe is built upon the ratio of length and time being the speed of light C and the product of length and time being a constant.

More a consequence of the limiting speed of light. Not all L/T=c.
The universe is built on many relationships.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Let us now look at the product of L and T:
L T = Lo To

If you look at the formulae you provided the same Lorentz transform is applied to both, so as you vary speed the length and time vary in proportion so L/Lo and T/To will automatically be a constant. If the relationship comes as a surprise to anyone it is a consequence of viewing time dilation and length contraction as separate phenomena.

   Unfortunately until I reread Einstein's Relativity book, I never paid any attention to the above relationships. So I had them backwards and it was a surprise to me that meters and seconds had an inverse relationship. I used to look at time moving faster as an object shrunk. So I was wrong. Yet that does not effect my dot-wave theory because all I wanted to know was the relationship between kilograms and coulombs. However the inverse relationship helps to explain many things.
   At big bang instead of a very fast time clock we have a time clock that is basically standing still. Thus we can stay at a very compacted point for an extremely long time. Almost infinity by our time clock. At full expansion the time clock will be very fast instead of very slow. That too is strange.
   It is also strange that energy is the reciprocal of wavelength (distance) and not time. One would normally think that a photon would have more energy if it had a faster time.
   Anyway for me to look at the simple equation I wrote makes Einstein's relativity clear. And as people look at relativity many are quite confused and have opposite opinions just as I believed until recently.

[Colin2B]

   It is also strange that energy is the reciprocal of wavelength (distance) and not time. One would normally think that a photon would have more energy if it had a faster time.

If you think about it, because the speed of light is constant then for a shorter wavelength you get more of them in each second, which is effectively frequency which is proportional to energy. Think of it as more 'activity' per second!

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

   It is also strange that energy is the reciprocal of wavelength (distance) and not time. One would normally think that a photon would have more energy if it had a faster time.

If you think about it, because the speed of light is constant then for a shorter wavelength you get more of them in each second, which is effectively frequency which is proportional to energy. Think of it as more 'activity' per second!

  That sounds logical but still a little strange to me. For a single pulse you only get one but if it was a continuous series of pulses from the same source then you would have a chain of them and the shorter the wavelength the more pulses in the chain. Then you use the term effectively frequency. So in this case the energy goes up for the entire chain and one photon has a higher energy level than one with a longer wavelength.
   So somehow energy is hC/wavelength and must be part of the spatial dimensions where h = Kg [met^2]/sec. Normally the frequency is f= 1/Time and if time is elongated or dilated then the frequency would be low. Which is opposite to the normal electrical way of thinking. So you use the term effectively frequency thus it is really a spatial frequency and not a time frequency.
  So now it appears that if we compress the gravitational field in the spatial dimensions, we get energy which is stored stuff. No time is necessary for energy. Then we divide by C^2 and we get mass.  Thus it is mass that requires the time dimension.
   As I study various mass to charge conversion charts there are many possibilities such as charge = Kg sec/ meter in which we get various ratios of powers of meters and seconds. Thus it appears that there are many relationships between meters and seconds that produce the universe that we see and measure.

[Colin2B]

For a single pulse you only get one but if it was a continuous series of pulses from the same source then you would have a chain of them and the shorter the wavelength the more pulses in the chain.

The energy for a single pulse i.e. photon is hf where f is the frequency of that photon. The rate of emission of photons from a source will determine the intensity of the light but does not change the frequency which is inherent in the photon. The 'chain' of photons as you call it does not determine either wavelength of frequency as they do not interact in that way. The light from most sources is also incoherent with no fixed relationship between phase and polarisation, in fact most sources will not produce photons with a single frequency eg incandesant lamp where the f of individual photons is dependant on the level of excitation of individual atoms, hence a emission spectrum.

PS when I said 'effectively frequency' I was saying equals, the same as.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

For a single pulse you only get one but if it was a continuous series of pulses from the same source then you would have a chain of them and the shorter the wavelength the more pulses in the chain.

The energy for a single pulse i.e. photon is hf where f is the frequency of that photon. The rate of emission of photons from a source will determine the intensity of the light but does not change the frequency which is inherent in the photon. The 'chain' of photons as you call it does not determine either wavelength of frequency as they do not interact in that way. The light from most sources is also incoherent with no fixed relationship between phase and polarisation, in fact most sources will not produce photons with a single frequency eg incandesant lamp where the f of individual photons is dependant on the level of excitation of individual atoms, hence a emission spectrum.
   

PS when I said 'effectively frequency' I was saying equals, the same as.

   Now you are using the term hf which I always used but the Red Photon is listed as 0.6563microns which is distance and not inverted time. So you converted the distance into a frequency. Have they ever measured the photon as a frequency? Is it a sine wave or a square wave? If it is a square wave it is a spectrum of frequencies.
  What you say makes sense to me but for ordinary electrical circuits, the power and energy is independent of frequency. However for the photon the energy is dependent upon the wavelength and then of course we could attribute a frequency to that wavelength.
  Therefore it appears to me that in physics energy is a function of meters and not time.

[evan_au]

Have they ever measured the photon as a frequency? Is it a sine wave or a square wave?

Yes, the world-standard cesium fountain clock has a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz (in the microwave region), and it is a sine wave.

Some of the proposals for even more accurate ion-trap clocks is to have them operate at visible frequencies. Most ions emit at a mixture of frequencies, but the clock is designed to maximise use of one frequency.
To calibrate them, researchers chop the light beam into segments, which as you say, produces harmonics. But the frequency of these harmonics can then be compared to the frequency of a cesium clock to measure the stability of both sources. The hints are that the ion-trap is more stable. 

Therefore it appears to me that in physics energy is a function of meters and not time.

Let's look at this in a more accessible, non-relativistic situation: a glass window.

The energy of a photon is unchanged when it exits a glass window, from before it enters the glass window. It also has the same energy while it is inside the glass window.

We know that:
- The velocity of the photon is reduced while it is passing through the glass (by the ratio of the refractive index of glass)
- The velocity v=fw (f=frequency, w=wavelength, since I can't type a lambda...)
- If the velocity changes, then f and/or w changes
- It's actually the wavelength that changes, and frequency remains unchanged

So if the energy is constant, and the frequency is constant, then it is more universal to say that for light, E=hf than to say E=hc/w.

But Energy exists in many different forms, and "energy is a function of meters and not time" is an extravagantly wild generalization.

[Colin2B]

  Now you are using the term hf which I always used but the Red Photon is listed as 0.6563microns which is distance and not inverted time. So you converted the distance into a frequency. ...........However for the photon the energy is dependent upon the wavelength and then of course we could attribute a frequency to that wavelength.
 Therefore it appears to me that in physics energy is a function of meters and not time.

I am assuming that you have read and understood what Evan is saying. I'm just going to add a few comments on the quote above.
Let's rewind to E=hf=hc/λ.
In the first part of this equation for energy we see it is dependant on frequency, but in the case of the photon frequency is the oscillation of the E and B fields. As the photon moves through space the variation in the amplitude of these fields traces a wave (the locus of its historical positions) which we can measure as either a distance or a time; that is for one cycle we can consider the photon to have moved a distance - the wavelength - or to have taken a certain time for that cycle - the waveperiod T=1/f. So rather than the energy only being considered a function of distance we can just as easily consider it a function of time.
It is also easy to fall into the mind trap that less=less, whereas the less distance and less time indicate that the oscillations are occurring at a faster rate.
Also, because the distance travelled and the time taken is dependant on speed we can see that f=c/λ hence the second formula for energy hc/λ.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

  Thanks to both of you for your analysis. I will have to think about what you guys say for awhile. I like the analysis that you can look at the photon from a ruler or a time clock. From a ruler it is a wavelength while from a time clock it is a frequency. When it goes through free space the speed is C and f = 1/time and energy =hf. Alternately energy = hC/wavelength. When it goes through water with an index of refraction of 1.3330, the speed is C/1.3330 and for the same energy we could say that either the frequency has changed or the wavelength has changed. Perhaps both changed? Were they able to test the frequency of the photon or the wavelength under water?
  (Which reminds me of the time I was testing my gun system for leaks and although we had large tanks for the tests it did not help find the leaks readily. So I bought a kiddie pool and hopped in it with my red bathing suit to find the source of the leaks. It was just a funny thing to do in a Defense plant)