[Bored chemist]

What do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?

Someone has stuck a < sign in it.

That would be a less than sign , signifying the force itself was <E

=<hf

Quite simple Mr Chemist .

Since you can't use the symbols correctly, perhaps you should write out what you mean in words.

Also, it makes no sense to say the force is less than the energy because it's dimensionally  wrong.
It's like saying I weigh more than ten days, or under I'm six feet old.

[guest39538]

What do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?

Someone has stuck a < sign in it.

That would be a less than sign , signifying the force itself was <E

=<hf

Quite simple Mr Chemist .

Since you can't use the symbols correctly, perhaps you should write out what you mean in words.

Also, it makes no sense to say the force is less than the energy because it's dimensionally  wrong.
It's like saying I weigh more than ten days, or under I'm six feet old.

It is very simple Mr chemist ,

If we take volume of energy E  and we have a surrounding spatial volume that has a lesser magnitude of energy than the surrounded volume E , the surrounding space is <E

  and the speed of the process is c , the force involved is the <E state . 

Ok ?

That easy , I can explain lots of ways .

→
p(c) = F<E

→
p(m) = F<E

→
E = *hf^3 / F<E = vol / t

    That one is space-time

[Bored chemist]

volume of energy E

Energy doesn't have volume.

Nothing you have posted is actually an explanation of anything.
It's just a  sequence of meaningless words and phrases.

[jeffreyH]

You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?

It may take (us) some time...

I saw the dead horse and couldn't resist.

[guest39538]

volume of energy E

Energy doesn't have volume.

Nothing you have posted is actually an explanation of anything.
It's just a  sequence of meaningless words and phrases.

Energy doesn't have a volume ?  Of course it does , the mass energy equivalent is a volume of energy . 

I've explained everything clear and precise , you can pretend you don't understand  .  You should know the famous light clock thought experiment ''off by heart'' . 6 mins + onwards

[Bored chemist]

volume of energy E

Energy doesn't have volume.

Nothing you have posted is actually an explanation of anything.
It's just a  sequence of meaningless words and phrases.

Energy doesn't have a volume ?  Of course it does , the mass energy equivalent is a volume of energy . 

I've explained everything clear and precise , you can pretend you don't understand  .  You should know the famous light clock thought experiment ''off by heart'' . 6 mins + onwards

Mass doesn't have a volume either.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

[guest39538]

volume of energy E

Energy doesn't have volume.

Nothing you have posted is actually an explanation of anything.
It's just a  sequence of meaningless words and phrases.

Energy doesn't have a volume ?  Of course it does , the mass energy equivalent is a volume of energy . 

I've explained everything clear and precise , you can pretend you don't understand  .  You should know the famous light clock thought experiment ''off by heart'' . 6 mins + onwards

Mass doesn't have a volume either.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

xyz= m  yes it does .

[Bored chemist]

Just restating something that's wrong doesn't magically make it right.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

[guest39538]

Just restating something that's wrong doesn't magically make it right.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

That's typically funny ,  I can probably explain the basics more precise than you can .  The speed of light is not lights speed .

Sorry for posting the td link , got my threads mixed up .

[mad aetherist]

@Thebox You need to consider conservation of energy. Photons are not made to move from one energy level to another through space. They are a consequence of this conservation of energy. It is the relationship of their frequency to this conservation law that is important. You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?

Hello Jeffrey , you do realise that in accordance with what a frequency is and what a wave length is , a single photon has neither a wave length or frequency ? A wave length is the plural of photon , photons , the frequency is an amount of photons passing a point in time .

No one seems to know much about a single photon.  How long -- one wave length probly.  How wide -- infinite width probly (due to emitted photaenos).
Einsteinologists do i think have lots of theories that require waves, ie lots of photons in formations, & these theories are useless re the action of a single photon (eg bending of light near the Sun)(refraction)(etc).

But i dont agree with u that a single photon doesnt have a wave length or frequency. 
The main central inner half of a photon (the outer half is the photaenos which are em radiation) has a helical shape (or a double helix if u like)(both work i think), propagating axially at c kmps, but propagating along the helix at more than c kmps, & the helix gives the wave effect & the frequency effect.
Plus the emitted photaenos (propagating out at praps 5c kmps in the near field) must of course reveal some kind of wave property & frequency property in sympathy with the parent helix).

[Bored chemist]

That's typically funny ,  I can probably explain the basics more precise than you can .  The speed of light is not lights speed .

Just restating something that's wrong doesn't magically make it right.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

[guest39538]

But i dont agree with u that a single photon doesnt have a wave length or frequency. 

You don't have to agree , because the semantics and physics does agree objectively .  A point particle has no length to begin with , a frequency is the plural of one photon passing a point in time . A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .

[mad aetherist]

But i dont agree with u that a single photon doesnt have a wave length or frequency. 

You don't have to agree , because the semantics and physics does agree objectively .  A point particle has no length to begin with , a frequency is the plural of one photon passing a point in time . A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .

Ah i see. Yes i think u are correct, Einsteinologists do like to consider a single photon as a point in some instances if not in all instances.
Yes, Einsteinologists spit their dummy if their waves & wave fronts & wave trains are taken away from them.

[Bored chemist]

A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .

Nobody ever said that it did.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

[guest39538]

A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .

Nobody ever said that it did.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

Really ?  another science forum closed my thread saying a single photon has a frequency and a wavelength which is impossible . I don't think science knows what it is on about at times because once it is questioned , they fall apart in answers .

[jeffreyH]

A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .

Nobody ever said that it did.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

Really ?  another science forum closed my thread saying a single photon has a frequency and a wavelength which is impossible . I don't think science knows what it is on about at times because once it is questioned , they fall apart in answers .

Study the electric and magnetic field variations described here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html

[Bored chemist]

Really ?  another science forum closed my thread saying a single photon has a frequency and a wavelength which is impossible .

They may have closed your thread  because it contained lots of nonsense, rather than because you got one thing right.

[guest39538]

A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .

Nobody ever said that it did.

You really need to start with learning the basics.

Really ?  another science forum closed my thread saying a single photon has a frequency and a wavelength which is impossible . I don't think science knows what it is on about at times because once it is questioned , they fall apart in answers .

Study the electric and magnetic field variations described here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html

Thank you ,  I do have my own set of math for this but no doubt the math you provided works .

My math is simple generalisation math that demonstrates the process

=ρ0  where ρ is density

=ρ0  where ρ is density

(-Q) + (+Q) / t = ρ(1E)

→
E = = 4/3 pi r^3 / t

→
F = <Q(1E)

?? 

Added - The work ω being done

ω =

[Bored chemist]

None of that makes any sense.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.

[Kryptid]

Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.

I can already see him justifying the lack of such agreeing parties as evidence that he is the only one smart enough to understand it.