
Re: Single photon
Posted:
Feb 27, 2013 8:13 PM


On Feb 27, 5:37 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote: > has nothing to do with the regular tetragon, 1); > waves have no personal weight issues, 2);
Yes, no personal weight need apply.
> quarterwave stub?, 3); > have to use tetrahedronometry, 4), for which > I have just found a representation; > there are no "right" trigona in Universe, > they ain't enantiamorphic!
Ain't they? You sure?
> thus quoth: > It implies that a photon is energy squared.
E=hf, nothing squared. Check implications again, squared.
> 2. It features the mechanical properties mass and momentum, > and ignores the electromagnetic properties > that relate more fundamentally with quanta charge systems.
No, we ignore nothing.
> 3. It ignores the fact that energy is not quanta, > but is a function of quanta and velocity.
What?! I mean, wtf?!
> 4. If integers and maths are valid
Integers are no relation to math, you should've preknowned.
> and can be used to model physical reality, > and we assume that 5^2 = 4^3 + 3^2
Bold assumption your 5^2 = 4^3 + 3^2 that! Wrong too a two. Too two... I hear a train and thunder storm heading some way Way WAY...
> the equation that Sammy references implies > that mass, momentum and energy > have a 345 relationship, > and that energy is represented by the hypotenuse > of a right angle.
543 is more likely, your triangles may vary. Really, draw.
One tree Petrified Forest Lane is a warning address that paper communications have dried out, burnt, and died. Tia.
 Mahipal Why do my posts attract all the lame ass losers  something I wrote?! Do my posts really get lost Usenet downstream when some ass snips?

