And another refuting experiment for the formula E=hf as the definition of a' single photon' energy
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Discovery of a very cool brown dwarf amongst the ten nearest stars to the Solar System
Next: deriving speed of light out of just pure mathematics; 2nd attempt #582 Correcting Math
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 02:08 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e031793c-dc75-450c-b26a-d46d50fcc1f8(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 10, 7:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 10, 6:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:76991615-4e90-4cd6-a92f-61105ee03dd5(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > On Apr 10, 6:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with >> > >> frequency f1 >> >> > >> take it on an airplane that will fly say 20 km above earth in a >> > >> day >> > >> of very **dusty air **!! >> > >> 2 >> > >> send a beam from that torch towards earth >> > >> and detect its frequency >> > >> ***to remain f1 ***!! >> >> > >> the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* >> > >> E1 >> > >> so E1 =hf1 >> > >> ----- >> >> > >> since it was through dusty air >> >> > >> it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that >> > >> was*** received on earth** >> > >> from the airplane >> > >> is E2 < E1 >> >> > >> BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! >> > >> so what did we got here ?? (:-) >> >> > >> E2 = hf1 >> > >> E1 =hf1 >> >> > >> E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! >> > >> or may be >> > >> E2 > E1 ??? >> >> > >> in short >> >> > >> hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A **SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! >> >> > >> please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** >> >> > >> E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - >> > >> IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! >> >> > >> btw >> > >> that is not ***the only** refutation >> > >> by experimental data >> > >> of E=hf >> > >> as the definition of *a single photon energy * >> > >> it is just one example of it !! >> >> > >> TIA >> > >> Y.Porat >> > >> copyright >> > >> 10 - 4-2010 >> > >> ------------------------------------ >> >> > > in a second though >> > > in order to prevent 'picky remarks >> > > let us do that experiment >> > > not from a moving airplane >> > > but >> > > from a stand still satellite >> > > so i will re Fraze it again for a satellite: >> >> > I assumed that we were ignoring SR and GR effects already. >> >> > > ------------------------------------ >> > > ============================== >> > > lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with >> > > frequency f1> >> >> > OK >> >> > > take it on ** a satellite** that will fly say 100 km above >> > > earth in a day >> > > of very **dusty air **!! >> >> > Are you claiming it is in geostationary orbit? If so, you've got the >> > height >> > wrong. >> >> > And you will still get GR effects. You've made your thought experiment >> > worse instead of better. >> >> > Maybe you should just have a torch and receiver in a long straight tube >> > filled with dusty air.. that would make it so much impler. >> >> > > 2 >> > > send a beam from that torch towards earth >> > > and detect its frequency >> > > ***to remain f1 ***!! >> >> > > the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* >> > > E1 >> > > so E1 =hf1 >> > > ----- >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula >> >> > > since it was through dusty air >> >> > > it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that >> > > was*** received on earth** >> > > from the airplane >> > > is E2 < E1 >> >> > That is correct, though you formula for E1 is wrong >> >> > > BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! >> >> > Yes >> >> > > so what did we got here ?? (:-) >> > > E2 = hf1 >> > > E1 =hf1 >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula >> >> > > E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula >> >> > > or may be >> > > E2 > E1 ??? >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula >> >> > > in short >> >> > > hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A *SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! >> >> > Yes .. it can. It is perfectly compatible with experimental evidence >> >> > > please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** >> >> > Yes .. and THAT is where you made you mistake, because you are talking >> > about >> > a BEAM of photons (plural). Each photon has E = hf energy. The beam >> > has a >> > multiple of that. So the total energy depends on how many photons >> > there >> > are. >> >> > > E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - >> >> > Yes .. and not of a beam >> >> > > IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! >> >> > No .. it COMES FROM experimental data. It is a FACT. >> >> > > btw >> > > that is not ***the only** refutation >> >> > It is NOT a refutation. There is no refutation. >> >> > > by experimental data >> > > of E=hf >> > > as the definition of *a single photon energy * >> > > it is just one example of it !! >> >> > It is an example of your stupidity. >> >> > > TIA >> > > Y.Porat >> > > copyright >> > > 10 - 4-2010 >> > > ========================= >> >> > Again, you make yuourself look even more foolish for copyrighting your >> > stupidity. >> >> --------------------- >> can anyone else explain he imbecile psychopath >> ****anonymous***** Inertial >> why he is now a registered **imbecile crook** ???!! >> >> btw >> is seems that that psychopath imbecile crook >> that it took him >> a few minutes to reply my first and second post >> so it seems that gangster group is paying him >> for sitting a 24 hour shift to >> to wait for me posting no matter what >> and pop is disturbing me now matter how !! >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> -------------------- >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ---------------- > > just now the psychopath Inertial There is nothing even remotely psychopathic about me > admitted that the above torch was sending > MANY single photons !! Of course I admit it .. I've been telling you beams of light are composed of multiple photons for WEEKS, since you started all this nonsense !! You are once again lying by saying I "just now' admit it. Have you NO sense of ethics or morals at all? > so how do you know > HOW MANY **SINGLE PHOTONS** IT WAS SENDING !!!?? > (or received on earth !!!) You can calculate it from the energy. Each photon has energy E = hf. So divide the total energy by that to get the number of photons. > while it is obvious that because of the dust > the number of single photons that was originally sent > is less that was reaching the earth ?? Yes .. that is correct. Some of the photons will interact with the dust and not make it all the way to the earth. So fewer photons, each of energy E = hf. > ---while your definition for a single photon > > ----is just > ---E=hf !!!! Yes .. it is. That is what was found experimentally decades ago. You have said NOTHING to refute that. > that ignores completely the **INTENSITY** OF LIGHT No .. it IS the INTENITY of the light .. that is determined by the number of photons over a given area in a given time. > ie > how many 'single photons' per unit aria ??? Depends on the intensity of the light, and how long the light is shining on the given area.
From: eric gisse on 10 Apr 2010 02:13 Inertial wrote: [...] I advocate letting him scream at the vast, uncaring internet until he dies of old age.
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 02:30 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hpp4uc$j01$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Inertial wrote: > > [...] > > I advocate letting him scream at the vast, uncaring internet until he dies > of old age. That won't take long.
From: Y.Porat on 10 Apr 2010 02:46 On Apr 10, 8:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e031793c-dc75-450c-b26a-d46d50fcc1f8(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 10, 7:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 10, 6:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >news:76991615-4e90-4cd6-a92f-61105ee03dd5(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > >> > > On Apr 10, 6:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with > >> > >> frequency f1 > > >> > >> take it on an airplane that will fly say 20 km above earth in a > >> > >> day > >> > >> of very **dusty air **!! > >> > >> 2 > >> > >> send a beam from that torch towards earth > >> > >> and detect its frequency > >> > >> ***to remain f1 ***!! > > >> > >> the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* > >> > >> E1 > >> > >> so E1 =hf1 > >> > >> ----- > > >> > >> since it was through dusty air > > >> > >> it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that > >> > >> was*** received on earth** > >> > >> from the airplane > >> > >> is E2 < E1 > > >> > >> BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! > >> > >> so what did we got here ?? (:-) > > >> > >> E2 = hf1 > >> > >> E1 =hf1 > > >> > >> E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! > >> > >> or may be > >> > >> E2 > E1 ??? > > >> > >> in short > > >> > >> hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A **SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! > > >> > >> please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** > > >> > >> E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - > >> > >> IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! > > >> > >> btw > >> > >> that is not ***the only** refutation > >> > >> by experimental data > >> > >> of E=hf > >> > >> as the definition of *a single photon energy * > >> > >> it is just one example of it !! > > >> > >> TIA > >> > >> Y.Porat > >> > >> copyright > >> > >> 10 - 4-2010 > >> > >> ------------------------------------ > > >> > > in a second though > >> > > in order to prevent 'picky remarks > >> > > let us do that experiment > >> > > not from a moving airplane > >> > > but > >> > > from a stand still satellite > >> > > so i will re Fraze it again for a satellite: > > >> > I assumed that we were ignoring SR and GR effects already. > > >> > > ------------------------------------ > >> > > ============================== > >> > > lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with > >> > > frequency f1> > > >> > OK > > >> > > take it on ** a satellite** that will fly say 100 km above > >> > > earth in a day > >> > > of very **dusty air **!! > > >> > Are you claiming it is in geostationary orbit? If so, you've got the > >> > height > >> > wrong. > > >> > And you will still get GR effects. You've made your thought experiment > >> > worse instead of better. > > >> > Maybe you should just have a torch and receiver in a long straight tube > >> > filled with dusty air.. that would make it so much impler. > > >> > > 2 > >> > > send a beam from that torch towards earth > >> > > and detect its frequency > >> > > ***to remain f1 ***!! > > >> > > the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* > >> > > E1 > >> > > so E1 =hf1 > >> > > ----- > > >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula > > >> > > since it was through dusty air > > >> > > it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that > >> > > was*** received on earth** > >> > > from the airplane > >> > > is E2 < E1 > > >> > That is correct, though you formula for E1 is wrong > > >> > > BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! > > >> > Yes > > >> > > so what did we got here ?? (:-) > >> > > E2 = hf1 > >> > > E1 =hf1 > > >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula > > >> > > E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! > > >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula > > >> > > or may be > >> > > E2 > E1 ??? > > >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula > > >> > > in short > > >> > > hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A *SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! > > >> > Yes .. it can. It is perfectly compatible with experimental evidence > > >> > > please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** > > >> > Yes .. and THAT is where you made you mistake, because you are talking > >> > about > >> > a BEAM of photons (plural). Each photon has E = hf energy. The beam > >> > has a > >> > multiple of that. So the total energy depends on how many photons > >> > there > >> > are. > > >> > > E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - > > >> > Yes .. and not of a beam > > >> > > IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! > > >> > No .. it COMES FROM experimental data. It is a FACT. > > >> > > btw > >> > > that is not ***the only** refutation > > >> > It is NOT a refutation. There is no refutation. > > >> > > by experimental data > >> > > of E=hf > >> > > as the definition of *a single photon energy * > >> > > it is just one example of it !! > > >> > It is an example of your stupidity. > > >> > > TIA > >> > > Y.Porat > >> > > copyright > >> > > 10 - 4-2010 > >> > > ========================= > > >> > Again, you make yuourself look even more foolish for copyrighting your > >> > stupidity. > > >> --------------------- > >> can anyone else explain he imbecile psychopath > >> ****anonymous***** Inertial > >> why he is now a registered **imbecile crook** ???!! > > >> btw > >> is seems that that psychopath imbecile crook > >> that it took him > >> a few minutes to reply my first and second post > >> so it seems that gangster group is paying him > >> for sitting a 24 hour shift to > >> to wait for me posting no matter what > >> and pop is disturbing me now matter how !! > > >> TIA > >> Y.Porat > >> -------------------- > > >> TIA > >> Y.Porat > >> ---------------- > > > just now the psychopath Inertial > > There is nothing even remotely psychopathic about me > > > admitted that the above torch was sending > > MANY single photons !! > > Of course I admit it .. I've been telling you beams of light are composed of > multiple photons for WEEKS, since you started all this nonsense !! You are > once again lying by saying I "just now' admit it. Have you NO sense of > ethics or morals at all? > > > so how do you know > > HOW MANY **SINGLE PHOTONS** IT WAS SENDING !!!?? > > (or received on earth !!!) > > You can calculate it from the energy. Each photon has energy E = hf. So > divide the total energy by that to get the number of photons. ---------------- imbecile psychopath FOR **HOW LONG** DO I HAVE TO MEASURE IT? MAY BE THE OTHER PSYCHOPATH PIG GISSE CAN TELL OS FOR HOW LO0NG?? (:-) TIA Y.Porat --------------------------------
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 02:49
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:915556e1-76ea-4bed-bad7-0c4066665657(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 10, 8:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e031793c-dc75-450c-b26a-d46d50fcc1f8(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 10, 7:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 10, 6:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >news:76991615-4e90-4cd6-a92f-61105ee03dd5(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > > On Apr 10, 6:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light >> >> > >> with >> >> > >> frequency f1 >> >> >> > >> take it on an airplane that will fly say 20 km above earth in >> >> > >> a >> >> > >> day >> >> > >> of very **dusty air **!! >> >> > >> 2 >> >> > >> send a beam from that torch towards earth >> >> > >> and detect its frequency >> >> > >> ***to remain f1 ***!! >> >> >> > >> the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* >> >> > >> E1 >> >> > >> so E1 =hf1 >> >> > >> ----- >> >> >> > >> since it was through dusty air >> >> >> > >> it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that >> >> > >> was*** received on earth** >> >> > >> from the airplane >> >> > >> is E2 < E1 >> >> >> > >> BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! >> >> > >> so what did we got here ?? (:-) >> >> >> > >> E2 = hf1 >> >> > >> E1 =hf1 >> >> >> > >> E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! >> >> > >> or may be >> >> > >> E2 > E1 ??? >> >> >> > >> in short >> >> >> > >> hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A **SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! >> >> >> > >> please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** >> >> >> > >> E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - >> >> > >> IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! >> >> >> > >> btw >> >> > >> that is not ***the only** refutation >> >> > >> by experimental data >> >> > >> of E=hf >> >> > >> as the definition of *a single photon energy * >> >> > >> it is just one example of it !! >> >> >> > >> TIA >> >> > >> Y.Porat >> >> > >> copyright >> >> > >> 10 - 4-2010 >> >> > >> ------------------------------------ >> >> >> > > in a second though >> >> > > in order to prevent 'picky remarks >> >> > > let us do that experiment >> >> > > not from a moving airplane >> >> > > but >> >> > > from a stand still satellite >> >> > > so i will re Fraze it again for a satellite: >> >> >> > I assumed that we were ignoring SR and GR effects already. >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------ >> >> > > ============================== >> >> > > lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light >> >> > > with >> >> > > frequency f1> >> >> >> > OK >> >> >> > > take it on ** a satellite** that will fly say 100 km above >> >> > > earth in a day >> >> > > of very **dusty air **!! >> >> >> > Are you claiming it is in geostationary orbit? If so, you've got >> >> > the >> >> > height >> >> > wrong. >> >> >> > And you will still get GR effects. You've made your thought >> >> > experiment >> >> > worse instead of better. >> >> >> > Maybe you should just have a torch and receiver in a long straight >> >> > tube >> >> > filled with dusty air.. that would make it so much impler. >> >> >> > > 2 >> >> > > send a beam from that torch towards earth >> >> > > and detect its frequency >> >> > > ***to remain f1 ***!! >> >> >> > > the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* >> >> > > E1 >> >> > > so E1 =hf1 >> >> > > ----- >> >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula >> >> >> > > since it was through dusty air >> >> >> > > it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that >> >> > > was*** received on earth** >> >> > > from the airplane >> >> > > is E2 < E1 >> >> >> > That is correct, though you formula for E1 is wrong >> >> >> > > BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! >> >> >> > Yes >> >> >> > > so what did we got here ?? (:-) >> >> > > E2 = hf1 >> >> > > E1 =hf1 >> >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula >> >> >> > > E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! >> >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula >> >> >> > > or may be >> >> > > E2 > E1 ??? >> >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula >> >> >> > > in short >> >> >> > > hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A *SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! >> >> >> > Yes .. it can. It is perfectly compatible with experimental >> >> > evidence >> >> >> > > please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** >> >> >> > Yes .. and THAT is where you made you mistake, because you are >> >> > talking >> >> > about >> >> > a BEAM of photons (plural). Each photon has E = hf energy. The >> >> > beam >> >> > has a >> >> > multiple of that. So the total energy depends on how many photons >> >> > there >> >> > are. >> >> >> > > E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - >> >> >> > Yes .. and not of a beam >> >> >> > > IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! >> >> >> > No .. it COMES FROM experimental data. It is a FACT. >> >> >> > > btw >> >> > > that is not ***the only** refutation >> >> >> > It is NOT a refutation. There is no refutation. >> >> >> > > by experimental data >> >> > > of E=hf >> >> > > as the definition of *a single photon energy * >> >> > > it is just one example of it !! >> >> >> > It is an example of your stupidity. >> >> >> > > TIA >> >> > > Y.Porat >> >> > > copyright >> >> > > 10 - 4-2010 >> >> > > ========================= >> >> >> > Again, you make yuourself look even more foolish for copyrighting >> >> > your >> >> > stupidity. >> >> >> --------------------- >> >> can anyone else explain he imbecile psychopath >> >> ****anonymous***** Inertial >> >> why he is now a registered **imbecile crook** ???!! >> >> >> btw >> >> is seems that that psychopath imbecile crook >> >> that it took him >> >> a few minutes to reply my first and second post >> >> so it seems that gangster group is paying him >> >> for sitting a 24 hour shift to >> >> to wait for me posting no matter what >> >> and pop is disturbing me now matter how !! >> >> >> TIA >> >> Y.Porat >> >> -------------------- >> >> >> TIA >> >> Y.Porat >> >> ---------------- >> >> > just now the psychopath Inertial >> >> There is nothing even remotely psychopathic about me >> >> > admitted that the above torch was sending >> > MANY single photons !! >> >> Of course I admit it .. I've been telling you beams of light are composed >> of >> multiple photons for WEEKS, since you started all this nonsense !! You >> are >> once again lying by saying I "just now' admit it. Have you NO sense of >> ethics or morals at all? >> >> > so how do you know >> > HOW MANY **SINGLE PHOTONS** IT WAS SENDING !!!?? >> > (or received on earth !!!) >> >> You can calculate it from the energy. Each photon has energy E = hf. So >> divide the total energy by that to get the number of photons. > ---------------- > imbecile psychopath > > FOR **HOW LONG** DO I HAVE TO MEASURE IT? However long you want to. Your 'refutation' has been shown to be wrong. Try again > MAY BE THE OTHER PSYCHOPATH PIG GISSE > CAN TELL OS FOR HOW LO0NG?? (:-) Again .. not a word of physics from Porat .. just insults Your 'refutation' has been shown to be wrong. Try again |