OK, then I ask for your explanation why you say no. My maths explanation allows for time dilation and the twin paradox.
My apologies, I assumed you would know what the symbols meant and could see how it is derived.Because all you've done is post an equation without defining the terms or explaining how they're derived (or applied).
Why would I know, since you've obviously pulled the "definitions" out your a**.My apologies, I assumed you would know what the symbols meant
Means nothing.Δ=change
t=time
hf=high frequency photon
S=entropy
c=the speed of light
More unscientific drivel.I derived this from considering time dilation and why the frequency of the Caesium atom changes when the Caesium is in motion. I derived that a change in frequency was a change in the Caesium's state of entropy.
You quite clearly do not want to discuss, you know very well what the symbols represent. They are all present math use symbols.Why would I know, since you've obviously pulled the "definitions" out your a**.
Means nothing.
More unscientific drivel.
In statistical mechanics, entropy (usual symbol S) is related to the number of microscopic configurations Ω that a thermodynamic system can have when in a state as specified by some macroscopic variables
Really?They are all present math use symbols.
And yet we're supposed to just take your word for it without explanation?you can now explain yourself and explain why as you say it is rubbish, give your reasons and just saying so does not count.
No, you don't.I assure you I understand the full function of my own equation and what it represents.
Exactly: hf is NOT a "high frequency photon".hf = The energy carried by any photon
No, you don't.
Exactly: hf is NOT a "high frequency photon".
No.huh? The energy carried by a photon is defined hf , so it is a hf photon .
Then I will change my wording just to satisfy your misunderstanding of the content.No.
hf is the energy (it can apply to electrons, photons...). Merely saying "it's a photon" does nothing.
True. It's still gibberish.This does not alter the equation in anyway.
Hows is it gibberish? Please explain, it looks correct to me.True. It's still gibberish.
Wrong - it's nothing to do with "my misunderstanding" it's about your sloppy (or ignorant) definition.Then I will change my wording just to satisfy your misunderstanding of the content
Still wrong. Go back and read my posts that state what hf is.hf=high frequency
That's right, it doesn't alter the fact the equation is made up bullsh*t and is wrong.This does not alter the equation in anyway.
ΔS=Δhf
Δt=ΔS
Made up and wrong ? yet I am using scientific symbols of present use, I am still waiting for you to explain why it is wrong .Wrong - it's nothing to do with "my misunderstanding" it's about your sloppy (or ignorant) definition.
Still wrong. Go back and read my posts that state what hf is.
That's right, it doesn't alter the fact the equation is made up bullsh*t and is wrong.
OK , try it this way because it is what I meanNo.
hf is the energy (it can apply to electrons, photons...). Merely saying "it's a photon" does nothing.
Well, because "high-frequency" is an adjective. It's not a variable, and it's not a unit for anything - it's not even a noun.Hows is it gibberish? Please explain, it looks correct to me.