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 12 Apr 2010 20:16 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b267bf4d-8948-4094-bd68-4820b8ab6e79(a)12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 10:36 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 12, 9:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 6:00 pm, Richard Dobson <richarddob...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> >> > wrote: >> >> > > On 12/04/2010 13:15, Inertial wrote: >> > > .. >> >> > > >> for instance >> > > >> questions for a secondary school boy : >> >> > > >> is E=hf >> > > >> time defined or not >> >> > > > It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. >> >> > > >> 2 >> > > >> is it time dependent or not >> >> > > > It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. >> >> > > Joule seconds anyone? >> >> > > Why is nobody discussing the definition (and units of) h in this >> > > thread? >> >> > > E.G. from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant >> >> > > "The Planck constant has dimensions of energy multiplied by time". >> > > Etc. >> >> > > Richard Dobson >> >> > ----------------------- >> > do you imagine that while i was dealing with it SOOO LONG... >> > i ddint do it ??....(:-) >> >> Then you noticed that the "seconds" dimension of "joule*seconds" >> cancels with f's sole dimension of "inverse seconds", leaving energy >> all by itself. >> >> > so ?? >> > what is your bottom line >> > is it time defined and dependent or not?? >> >> I say it is not, and here's why. >> -------------------------------------------------- > > very nice Mr NuNI > > but not all the way!!! (:-) > > BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY MY UNPRECEDENTED INNOVATION !!! (:-) You have no innovation .. just misunderstanding > you say that the time dimension of the h > is canceled by th e1/time of f right?? Yes it is. > (AND YOU IMAGINE THAT WHILE I WAS DEALING WITH IT FOR SOOOO LONG > **I DIDNT NOTICE IT ??**(:-) Probably not > yet there is another think that only i noticed There is nothing that only you noticed. > and not anyone else above > i actually mentioned it inmy other thread > > 'A better new definition of the real single photon' > it was i think in 12 -march 2010): > > now listen carefully: > > THE f (FREQUEMCY) > IS COMPOSED OF TWO COMPONENTS > NOT JUST ONE !! > IT IS COMPOSED OF > a > the time UNIT > B > THE TIME *SCALAR *(!!) VARIABLE !! Every measurement has a numerical value and a unit. This is BASIC MEASUREMENT THEORY. Not anything new that noone else has noticed > now you are right that the time UNIT > WAS CANCELED Yes .. so it is not time dependent. > BUT THE TIME ***SCALAR VARIABLE ** > **WAS *** NOT** CANCELED !!! You have used E = h f tP / 1 second Which makes YOUR formula 1 second dependent. > and that is the secrete why > while f becomes bigger > THE hf GETS A BIGGER **SCALAR** > MULTIPLIER !! No .. it doesn't. Because we KNOW that the energy of a single photon, as measured experimentally, is E = hf. > (FULL STOP ) > no need for further explanations !! No need for you nonsense > and that is the little difference > that no one noticed before BAHAHA. > and enable me to go ahead > and make more revolutionary insights ! Not a single one. > ----- > and find the smallest possible photon energy No such thing, unless there is a smallest photon frequency. > (the psychopath thief Inertial never did it that way > nor Ben nor anyone else > and that is the little differene betwen an > innovative physicist and a little Lier thief ) > ) Because YOUR way is TOTALLY WRONG > for instance > to find a suggestion about the smallest possible > photon energy > by multiplying that h by a much smaler time > multiplier Which has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS in experimental evidence or theory. > (AGAIN BY MULTILYING IT ONLY BY THE SCALAR OF THE PLANK TIME > andnot by all the plank time Which now makes your formula ... E = h f tP / 1 second ... second dependent and so nonsense > (and i indicated that remark explicitly inmyabove > thread from 12 -3 2010 - just the **scalar figure **of plank > time !! Which now makes your formula ... E = h f tP / 1 second ... second dependent and so nonsense > ------ [snip porat repeating himself] > AND TO PROVE THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS !! you've never done that > (because the photon energy is linearly > related to the f factor AS it always has been .. E = hf You've just gotten the formula wrong by introducing a second-dependent factor > while the mass ( kilograms) there > was the only factor in photon energy hf > that is ***linearly*** related to the > linear f **scalar *!!! > > etc etc > iow > a whole revolution in physics Nope > based on a **little discovery **that > hf has composed of > A TIME UNIT-- > *** MULTIPLIED BY A *SCALAR FIGURE* OF THAT f *** !!! That's not a discovery. Its just how measurements work. You are SUCH a thief stealing credit for other people's ideas and work. It is shameful.
From: Y.Porat on 13 Apr 2010 01:28 On Apr 13, 2:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b267bf4d-8948-4094-bd68-4820b8ab6e79(a)12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 12, 10:36 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 12, 9:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Apr 12, 6:00 pm, Richard Dobson <richarddob...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> > >> > wrote: > > >> > > On 12/04/2010 13:15, Inertial wrote: > >> > > .. > > >> > > >> for instance > >> > > >> questions for a secondary school boy : > > >> > > >> is E=hf > >> > > >> time defined or not > > >> > > > It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. > > >> > > >> 2 > >> > > >> is it time dependent or not > > >> > > > It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. > > >> > > Joule seconds anyone? > > >> > > Why is nobody discussing the definition (and units of) h in this > >> > > thread? > > >> > > E.G. from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant > > >> > > "The Planck constant has dimensions of energy multiplied by time". > >> > > Etc. > > >> > > Richard Dobson > > >> > ----------------------- > >> > do you imagine that while i was dealing with it SOOO LONG.... > >> > i ddint do it ??....(:-) > > >> Then you noticed that the "seconds" dimension of "joule*seconds" > >> cancels with f's sole dimension of "inverse seconds", leaving energy > >> all by itself. > > >> > so ?? > >> > what is your bottom line > >> > is it time defined and dependent or not?? > > >> I say it is not, and here's why. > >> -------------------------------------------------- > > > very nice Mr NuNI > > > but not all the way!!! (:-) > > > BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY MY UNPRECEDENTED INNOVATION !!! (:-) > > You have no innovation .. just misunderstanding > > > you say that the time dimension of the h > > is canceled by th e1/time of f right?? > > Yes it is. > > > (AND YOU IMAGINE THAT WHILE I WAS DEALING WITH IT FOR SOOOO LONG > > **I DIDNT NOTICE IT ??**(:-) > > Probably not > > > yet there is another think that only i noticed > > There is nothing that only you noticed. > > > > > and not anyone else above > > i actually mentioned it inmy other thread > > > 'A better new definition of the real single photon' > > it was i think in 12 -march 2010): > > > now listen carefully: > > > THE f (FREQUEMCY) > > IS COMPOSED OF TWO COMPONENTS > > NOT JUST ONE !! > > IT IS COMPOSED OF > > a > > the time UNIT > > B > > THE TIME *SCALAR *(!!) VARIABLE !! > > Every measurement has a numerical value and a unit. This is BASIC > MEASUREMENT THEORY. Not anything new that noone else has noticed > > > now you are right that the time UNIT > > WAS CANCELED > > Yes .. so it is not time dependent. > > > BUT THE TIME ***SCALAR VARIABLE ** > > **WAS *** NOT** CANCELED !!! > > You have used > > E = h f tP / 1 second > > Which makes YOUR formula 1 second dependent. > > > and that is the secrete why > > while f becomes bigger > > THE hf GETS A BIGGER **SCALAR** > > MULTIPLIER !! > > No .. it doesn't. Because we KNOW that the energy of a single photon, as > measured experimentally, is E = hf. > > > (FULL STOP ) > > no need for further explanations !! > > No need for you nonsense > > > and that is the little difference > > that no one noticed before > > BAHAHA. > > > and enable me to go ahead > > and make more revolutionary insights ! > > Not a single one. > > > ----- > > and find the smallest possible photon energy > > No such thing, unless there is a smallest photon frequency. > > > (the psychopath thief Inertial never did it that way > > nor Ben nor anyone else > > and that is the little differene betwen an > > innovative physicist and a little Lier thief ) > > ) > > Because YOUR way is TOTALLY WRONG > > > for instance > > to find a suggestion about the smallest possible > > photon energy > > by multiplying that h by a much smaler time > > multiplier > > Which has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS in experimental evidence or theory. > > > (AGAIN BY MULTILYING IT ONLY BY THE SCALAR OF THE PLANK TIME > > andnot by all the plank time > > Which now makes your formula ... > > E = h f tP / 1 second > > .. second dependent and so nonsense > > > (and i indicated that remark explicitly inmyabove > > thread from 12 -3 2010 - just the **scalar figure **of plank > > time !! > > Which now makes your formula ... > > E = h f tP / 1 second > > .. second dependent and so nonsense > > > ------ > > [snip porat repeating himself] > > > AND TO PROVE THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS !! > > you've never done that > > > (because the photon energy is linearly > > related to the f factor > > AS it always has been .. E = hf > > You've just gotten the formula wrong by introducing a second-dependent > factor > > > while the mass ( kilograms) there > > was the only factor in photon energy hf > > that is ***linearly*** related to the > > linear f **scalar *!!! > > > etc etc > > iow > > a whole revolution in physics > > Nope > > > based on a **little discovery **that > > hf has composed of > > A TIME UNIT-- > > *** MULTIPLIED BY A *SCALAR FIGURE* OF THAT f *** !!! > > That's not a discovery. Its just how measurements work. You are SUCH a > thief stealing credit for other people's ideas and work. It is shameful. -------------------- even now while the solution of why hf ** IS TIME DEPENDENT** IS STUCKED TO HIS IMBECILE'S THROUGH T HE STILL DOES NT UNDERSTAND IT and goes on calming THAT IT IS NOT TIME DEPENDED (:-) if it is **not time depending why multiply it by any additional scalar factor to enlarg or diminish it as i did muchbefore by claiming that the definition of a single s,allest photon energy should be E min =hf n while 0 >n <<<< 1.0000 WHO WAS THE FIRST ONE IN HISTORY THAT DEFINED IT THAT WAY ?? 2 if the Nazi Josef Inertial still claimes that hf is the definition of the single phootn why multiply hf by the SCALAR PART of the plank time ?? i presented it as E min = h times 1/T times the** scalar part **of Plank time !!!!1 IF IT IS MULTIPLIED ONLY BY THE **SCALAR PART** OF IT THE DIMENSIONS ARE SETTLED RIGHT !! little Josef Goebbels does not understand it to this very minute even by sticking the solution to his imbecile thought so how could he be the leader of all that process??!! wich started long before this thread i cangive you a list of threads in which i was leading it 1 about 7 years ago !! 'a prove that the photon Enrgy has a nonzero mass i based it on the E=hf formula 2 'for the first time an inner contradiction found in QM paradigm (to say since the real definition of a single photon was never done properly no single photon ever interfered with itself !! 3 a copyright question 4 'a better definition for the real single photon energy emission' (there i first time presented it as E min = hf n while 0>n <<< 1.000 which is right for itself even without theuse of Plank time !!) 5 a better new definition of the real single photon energy emission so who is the real leader of all that process !! 6 if it is "known" that dimensions are followed by a scalar figure (BTW not always and not for all of them !!! that is another mistake and physics misundertanding of the genius inertial !!) why was it **and still is ** so difficult for Little nasty pig thief Inertial to understand that E=hf IS TIME DEPENDENT **BY THE SCALAR PART OF THAT f (even by sticking it to his silly thought ??!!) A MONKEY COPY CAN NEVER BE AS THE ORIGINAL !!! (not to mention while the monkey is dishonest monkey ... !! Y.Porat ------------------- )
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 00:23 On Apr 10, 7:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > now please tell us > what t is the definition of > f from that hf ?? In E = h/t, tide t may be wavestint or wavelength, in near-field and far-field (where h=KH); whereas in E = hc/s, stride s may be wavearm or wavespan. A wave's lifetime ô is usually between t and Ô, where the latter is its mean free fliht and further superposed with its univers; any shorter than t or longer than Ô and the wave is virtval/ potential. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 00:41 > or wavespan.  A wave's lifetime ô is usually between t and Ã, where That ouht be Ï and Τ, taý and Taý.
From: Y.Porat on 17 Apr 2010 03:41
On Apr 17, 6:41 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > or wavespan.  A wave's lifetime ô is usually between t and Ã, where > > That ouht be Ï and Τ, taý and Taý. ----------------------- but what is your bottom line:??? is E=hf time dependent or not?? please dont talk a lot just the bottom line even the bottom word .... that is the million $ (if you like trillion $) question TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- |