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: Y.Porat on 10 Apr 2010 00:29 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: ------------------------------------ ============================== lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with frequency f1> take it on ** a satellite** that will fly say 100 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 =========================
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 00:58 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(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.
From: Y.Porat on 10 Apr 2010 01:19 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 ----------------
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 01:38 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ca8d6f72-a0e9-4cf6-a2f5-7d75aae76dfa(a)5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > 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** ???!! So that is your answer to valid physics arguments, is it? And you call ME a psychopath? Look unto yourself. > btw > is seems that that psychopath imbecile crook > that it took him > a few minutes to reply my first and second post I'm efficient. Your posts do not require much thinking abuot. > 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 !! Again .. so your only response to me refuting your argument by using valid physics is to accuse me of being a gangster and a crook. That says a great deal more about your faults than mine.
From: Y.Porat on 10 Apr 2010 01:43
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 admitted that the above torch was sending MANY single photons !! so how do you know HOW MANY **SINGLE PHOTONS** IT WAS SENDING !!!?? (or received on earth !!!) 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 ?? ---while your definition for a single photon ----is just ---E=hf !!!! that ignores completely the **INTENSITY** OF LIGHT ie how many 'single photons' per unit aria ??? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- |