> > > > > > > > > The more powers of c, the less fundamental it is.

> > > > > > > > As I said, that's an unusual characterization of physical
> > > > > > > > fundamentality.

> > > > > > > You make think it unusual, but it makes perfect sense to me.

> > > > > > That's fine. I just remarked that it was highly unusual. If you were
> > > > > > not implying in any way that physicists think the same way about
> > > > > > fundamentality, then there is nothing more to comment on.

> > > > > How am I supposed to know what someone else thinks? If you want to know
> > > > > what physicists think, then go and ask some physicists.

> > > > My point exactly, Golden Boar, my point exactly.

> > > > Remember this?
> > > > The milestones along the path are easily recognized:

> > > > 1. Takes an amateur interest in a romantic-sounding field
> > > > 2. Reads a few popularizations to try to nail down some basic concepts
> > > > 3. Asks a few questions on a public forum to check basic understanding
> > > > of the popularization
> > > > 4. Fiddles around with a simple formula or two and some physical
> > > > constants
> > > > 5. Has an idea that sounds plausible and that didn't appear to be
> > > > already covered in the readings so far
> > > > 6. Becomes hopeful that the idea is a) original, b) useful, and [gasp]
> > > > c) possibly revolutionary
> > > > 7. Floats the idea on a public forum, already excited
> > > > 8. When it is quickly dismissed, begs for some indulgence
> > > > 9. When it is more slowly and thoroughly dismissed, blusters that the
> > > > critics don't know what they are talking about
> > > > 10. Fuming, proceeds to invest a lot of private time developing the
> > > > idea, at the expense of further reading or trying to find out what's
> > > > wrong with the idea. In so doing, becomes emotionally committed to the
> > > > idea.
> > > > 11. Finds an avenue for vanity publishing of the idea, establishing
> > > > copyright for future generations, even if it is completely rejected by
> > > > the self-preserving status quo of this generation
> > > > 12. Returns to public forum to proclaim the publication, and shakes
> > > > fist at all those who castigated him on the forum.
> > > > 13. When fist-shaking earns him a spot on a crank list, laughs
> > > > maniacally and begins name-calling and imagining personal persecution
> > > > 14. Bitterness and invective replace all interest in the
> > > > romantic-sounding field.

> > > > PD

> > > Well why don't you quickly dismiss my ideas then.

> > > 1) E_n = f.h / c^n, where n is an integer between 0 and 2 (possiblly
> > > 0-3 or 0-4).
> > >      For massive particle f = gamma.fC

> > Now, by f, do you mean a *measurable* quantity -- such as what would
> > appear in diffraction or interference effects -- or just a hidden,
> > unmeasurable quantity? If by f, you mean a *measurable* quantity, then
> > all we have to do is compare with experimental measurement. Let me know
> > and I'll give you some numbers for comparison.

> By f, I mean frequency, so stop playing word games. For a massice
> particle,
> f = gamma.fC (Lorentz factor * Compton frequency)

> > > 1a) E = m.c^2 is a pointless manipulation of E = f.h / c^0
> > > 2) Gravity acts on frequency
> > >      G_f = 2 * pi * l_P^2 * h / c = (2 * pi * l_P)^2 * hbar / c
> > > and
> > >      F_g = G_f * f_1 * f_2 / r^2
> > > 3) You cant have energy without frequency

> > You'll notice momentum is frame-dependent. It is entirely possible to
> > choose a frame where the momentum of any massive object is zero, don't
> > you agree? Or do you think somehow that is a "wrong" result if you do
> > that?

> The relative momentum between two objects which have the same momentum
> is zero.
> This does not mean that the objects have no momentum.
> Take for example the cup on a table.
> It is easy to show that the cup has momentum by measuring the momentum
> relative to the sun, for example.

> > > 6) You cant have a flow of charge without charge

> > > If you provide proof that any of these are wrong, you will find that I
> > > accept that proof.