C Squared

Jim, the equation E=hf is not real ie imaginary because its energy is merely defined as the ability to do work and is not actually doing work itself. Thus E=6.626x10^-34Joulesecond/second is correct in the simplest terms where the second/second is plainly defined as s/s since way back in the day. Yet since this equation is just the theoretical measure of the time it could take to do work (meaning all work isn't going to take an s/s to be accomplished) then it will also handle any undetermined amount of time per second it could possibly take to do work. Let me stress that E=hf is an imaginary equation and rigorously isn't doing anything at all except trying to predict how many Joules it's going to take to construct something out of light and not actually constructing it itself. Just like mc^2 is an imaginary equation that in terms of light speed squared is predicting how much energy is available to do work relative to the amount of mass given and not actually doing work itself. E=hf is predicting how much energy is available to do work relative to the time given that need not be s/s but s/s is going to be the constant base of photon frequency just like m_0 is the constant rest base in m_0xc^2. In mc^2 the m is the arbitrary value and in hf the upper s is the arbitrary value.

It's better to say h=6.626x10^-34Ws^2 because this is what's really happening and solidly saying but h=6.626x10^-34Js has totally truncated the true units themselves and 'softened' this photon as it were. So what I'm saying is that c^2=E/m absolutely in terms of light speed squared alone but not in terms of the gravelocity squared or chargevelocity squared and h=E/f absolutely in terms of the Watt second squared alone but not in terms of the Watt nanosecond squared or even the Watt Planck time squared itself. The confusion as you call it is actually the ultimate beauty of these plastic equations in that they allow us to use whatever mode of measure to best suit their needs for each individual imaginary theory required.

Trust me when I say the High Influence Manipulators want precisely this amount of confusion regarding these clay equations so that everyone will be so befuddled fumble focking around with the imaginary theory that they believe the real application of vacuumotor tech is still a googolplex of megaparsecs beyond them while the H.I.M. cackles at the stupified slack jawed humants drooling over their incomprehensible equationry below.

.......................................................Omni

Omni, This stuff is really not all that complicated and you may be right about some beings benefiting from keeping it as comfusing as it can be made to seem. The old "Wizard of Oz" trick or I suppose these days Harry Potter stuff.

Indeed.

Omni, Upon reflection I think the value of upper s in s/s is not at all arbitrary nor is E=hf imaginary. The statement E=hf is valid in all cases but there is a misuse that has been in practice since this statement was made. That is the upper s is not one second of time and it is not an arbitrary amount of time either. The upper s value depends on the frequency of the energy being examined.

If the upper s value 'depends' then it's arbitrary relative to the frequency examined. If it doesn't depend on the frequency then it's not arbitrary. Or if it's not arbitrary and it's not one second then you'd rather I place a 'zero time constant' in there? Or mayhaps one light second so that this equation that's only predicting the possible amount of Joules now becomes

6.626x10^-34Jx299792458df meaning Jv=1.986x10^-25Ftv^2

It's light so a light second seems as good as any but we're not straight getting energy anymore, we're getting energy speed so the E=1.986x10^-25Ftv^2/v. An interesting drivel corrolary is that if (Gm^2)/(gravelocity), (6.672x10^-11Nm^2kg^2/kg^2)/(3.359x10^14m/s), then this is gravity Power=1.986x10^-25E/t so E=1.986x10^-25Pt.

Or if you don't like that upper t then t=d/v so h=6.626x10^-34Fd^2/v and since frequency=v/wavelength the E=6.626x10^-34Fd^2v/dv or E=hv/d assuming h's units are Fd^2/v.

I believe for every event action there's an equally imaginary event reaction and an oppositely real event reaction. Since hf is merely trying to predict the energy of the event then it's simply the equally imaginary event reaction. But I can see how you think it's real too (or vetahw you think it is) because it's foretelling the amount of energy in the oppositely real event reaction. In either case hf is only the imaginary theory and not actually the hardcore application which would be along the lines of Fa. Or if we can give force distance in order to predict the amount of work needed, and if we can give force velocity to predict the amount of power needed, then we can give force acceleration to do the amount of work needed with the amount of power given.

Omni, You are posting a lot of really interesting ideas while I keep on the detail you also posted: s/s. This is not arbitrary units or quantities of time. The lower s is one second always. The upper s is undefined by the original author or anyone since him. You need to focus here on the placement of s/s within the statement, aka, Planck's Constant. It is common practice to discard the upper s as you say but that is wrong and causes other problems down the road. It makes no sense to place s/s in the middle of the statement and then simply discard it because you don't want to grapple with the complication. This is not a moral issue and I don't want to invoke guilt into this matter but there needs to be some remodeling done.