On Sep 7, 12:51 am, Richard Clark wrote:

The circularity of Dr. Ken Mellendorf's foggy writing might suggest
it, if it weren't otherwise nipped in the bud by the bald statement.

On the other hand perhaps Dr. Mellendorf has some expertise in the
subject.

What is the term p? Could it be (p)hoton? I've speculated about
Planck's constant (which you comment upon, below), but I find it very
sloppy writing for Dr. Mellendorf to wander into his own naming
conventions.

I think you should make those comments directly to him so that he an
opportunity to respond. Shall I forward them for you? :-)

What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

Seems like something is wrong in that sentence, doesn't it.

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

It's also possible that since E=0 is wrong, the assumption that p=0
might also be wrong. If not, then you'll need to explain radiation
pressure in an all new way.

Yes, and it seems your daughter trumped me on Planck once before. ;-)

She's better at math than I ever was.

73, ac6xg