Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 23 Mar 2010 07:02 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:825d5df4-dc7b-4e35-b649-a6e1e20c28d6(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 23, 12:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6c0d19bb-b079-4a62-be63-91cfb06037d6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Here is mybetterdefinition about the range >> >> > in which the real single photon energy emission should be found (in >> >> > future !!! it was not yet been found!! >> >> >> > E single photon = hf n >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf >> >> You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense >> >> >> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range >> >> >> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1 >> >> >> > 2 >> >> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it >> >> There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0 >> >> >> >> >> > you need for it >> >> >> > a >> >> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells >> >> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated >> >> > by photon electric cells ) >> >> >> > b >> >> > a Led torch >> >> > c >> >> > the experiment must be in a background light >> >> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!.. >> >> > iow light wave that is long enough >> >> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit ) >> >> >> > so >> >> > 1 >> >> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells >> >> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!! >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! >> >> > (half or 1/4 second etc ) >> >> >> > 2 >> >> > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you >> >> > calculator >> >> > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then >> >> > *disappear* >> >> > 3 >> >> > what do you get there ?? >> >> >> > some hints: >> >> > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the >> >> > calculator activation ('life time' )-- >> >> >> > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION* >> >> > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!** >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does NOT >> prove your >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. >> >> >> > (in our case less than a second >> >> > but more then zero time !!! >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does NOT >> prove your >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. >> >> >> > Q E D !! >> >> There is no QED there >> >> >> > historic copyright ! >> >> Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense? >> >> >> > Yehiel Porat >> >> > Mars 2010 >> >> > TIA >> >> > ------------------ >> >> >> and only now after all this long tedious >> >> thred >> >> i can bring my >> >> bottom line 'side product ' (:-) >> >> There is none >> >> >> the sensational pick antic >> >> side product innovation >> >> punch line : >> >> >> since we found in this thread that the >> >> smallest photon energy is : >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 Joules >> >> inorder to find the >> >> No .. you found nothing of the sort >> >> >> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!! >> >> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by c^2 >> >> 9 exp16!! >> >> and we get >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16 >> >> and we get the >> >> smallest PHOTON MASS : >> >> Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest photon >> mass >> (because photon mass is zero) >> >> >> ===================== >> >> Smallest photon **mass** >> >> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! >> >> ===================== >> >> Nonsense .. even with === around it >> >> >> and mind you >> >> there is jsut one kind of mass >> >> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one >> >> Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length. >> >> That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a relativistic >> mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a measurement >> of >> different things. >> >> Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both lengths >> >> >> there is the MKS system >> >> >> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM >> >> just the MKS >> >> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !! >> >> noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone is >> disputing as though they are. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> indeed fantastically small mass >> >> and only now you can start to understand why >> >> people said that the photon mass is >> >> practically zero!! >> >> but now i say >> >> practically is not necessarily theoretically !! >> >> Yes .. theoretically >> >> >> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important >> >> You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary numbers >> and >> multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. That >> is >> just nonsense. >> >> >> >> >> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in >> >> money saving uses !! >> >> from now on( i think) >> >> there is no use anymore to look for >> >> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!! >> >> because there is nothing like that >> >> >> old Catto said : >> >> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! >> >> so >> >> >> to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive >> >> TIME !!! >> >> for further advance . >> >> >> copyright Yehiel Porat >> >> March 2010 >> >> More nonsense copyrighted >> >> >> TIA >> >> Y.Porat >> >> --------------------------------------- >> >> > Paul Draper was defeated >> > and refuses to admit it !!! >> >> Never happened. >> >> > i was asking him two simple questions >> > 1 >> > is the Planck Time definition as >> > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... >> >> No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around 5.39x10^-44 >> seconds. >> Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is dependent >> on the units of measure. >> >> > (it is defined by seconds) >> >> No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds (or >> any >> other unit) >> >> > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? >> >> That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. What >> do >> you mean by a time dependent time duration? >> >> > 2 >> > who was the first one to shggest >> > the Planck time >> > as >> > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR >> > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY >> > TO BE EMITTED ?? >> >> Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the >> smallest >> quanta of >> time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense. >> >> But I'm sure others have said that before you. >> >> > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) >> >> He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find out. >> That >> doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he replies "I >> don't know, you have defeated me" >> >> >> >> > BTW >> > can anyone reveal >> > who is the nasty pig anonymous >> > that is less than one year on this ng !!!. >> > and is calling himself Inertial =artful >> >> You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when using a >> different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought that was >> obvious. > > ----------------------- > are you by any chance PD ??? (:-) > ---------------------- Are you? Silly me .. I forgot .. you are Joseph Goebbels.
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 07:16 On Mar 23, 1:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:825d5df4-dc7b-4e35-b649-a6e1e20c28d6(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 12:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:6c0d19bb-b079-4a62-be63-91cfb06037d6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > Here is mybetterdefinition about the range > >> >> > in which the real single photon energy emission should be found (in > >> >> > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > >> >> > E single photon = hf n > > >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf > > >> You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense > > >> >> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > >> >> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 > > >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1 > > >> >> > 2 > >> >> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it > > >> There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0 > > >> >> > you need for it > > >> >> > a > >> >> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells > >> >> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated > >> >> > by photon electric cells ) > > >> >> > b > >> >> > a Led torch > >> >> > c > >> >> > the experiment must be in a background light > >> >> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!.. > >> >> > iow light wave that is long enough > >> >> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit ) > > >> >> > so > >> >> > 1 > >> >> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells > >> >> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!! > > >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! > >> >> > (half or 1/4 second etc ) > > >> >> > 2 > >> >> > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you > >> >> > calculator > >> >> > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then > >> >> > *disappear* > >> >> > 3 > >> >> > what do you get there ?? > > >> >> > some hints: > >> >> > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the > >> >> > calculator activation ('life time' )-- > > >> >> > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION* > >> >> > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!** > > >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does NOT > >> prove your > >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > >> >> > (in our case less than a second > >> >> > but more then zero time !!! > > >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does NOT > >> prove your > >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > >> >> > Q E D !! > > >> There is no QED there > > >> >> > historic copyright ! > > >> Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense? > > >> >> > Yehiel Porat > >> >> > Mars 2010 > >> >> > TIA > >> >> > ------------------ > > >> >> and only now after all this long tedious > >> >> thred > >> >> i can bring my > >> >> bottom line 'side product ' (:-) > > >> There is none > > >> >> the sensational pick antic > >> >> side product innovation > >> >> punch line : > > >> >> since we found in this thread that the > >> >> smallest photon energy is : > > >> >> 3.55 exp-77 Joules > >> >> inorder to find the > > >> No .. you found nothing of the sort > > >> >> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!! > >> >> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by c^2 > >> >> 9 exp16!! > >> >> and we get > > >> >> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16 > >> >> and we get the > >> >> smallest PHOTON MASS : > > >> Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest photon > >> mass > >> (because photon mass is zero) > > >> >> ===================== > >> >> Smallest photon **mass** > >> >> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! > >> >> ===================== > > >> Nonsense .. even with === around it > > >> >> and mind you > >> >> there is jsut one kind of mass > >> >> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one > > >> Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length. > > >> That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a relativistic > >> mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a measurement > >> of > >> different things. > > >> Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both lengths > > >> >> there is the MKS system > > >> >> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM > >> >> just the MKS > >> >> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !! > > >> noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone is > >> disputing as though they are. > > >> >> ------------------------------- > >> >> indeed fantastically small mass > >> >> and only now you can start to understand why > >> >> people said that the photon mass is > >> >> practically zero!! > >> >> but now i say > >> >> practically is not necessarily theoretically !! > > >> Yes .. theoretically > > >> >> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important > > >> You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary numbers > >> and > >> multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. That > >> is > >> just nonsense. > > >> >> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in > >> >> money saving uses !! > >> >> from now on( i think) > >> >> there is no use anymore to look for > >> >> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!! > >> >> because there is nothing like that > > >> >> old Catto said : > >> >> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! > >> >> so > > >> >> to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive > >> >> TIME !!! > >> >> for further advance . > > >> >> copyright Yehiel Porat > >> >> March 2010 > > >> More nonsense copyrighted > > >> >> TIA > >> >> Y.Porat > >> >> --------------------------------------- > > >> > Paul Draper was defeated > >> > and refuses to admit it !!! > > >> Never happened. > > >> > i was asking him two simple questions > >> > 1 > >> > is the Planck Time definition as > >> > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... > > >> No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around 5.39x10^-44 > >> seconds. > >> Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is dependent > >> on the units of measure. > > >> > (it is defined by seconds) > > >> No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds (or > >> any > >> other unit) > > >> > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > >> That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. What > >> do > >> you mean by a time dependent time duration? > > >> > 2 > >> > who was the first one to shggest > >> > the Planck time > >> > as > >> > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR > >> > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY > >> > TO BE EMITTED ?? > > >> Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the > >> smallest > >> quanta of > >> time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense. > > >> But I'm sure others have said that before you. > > >> > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) > > >> He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find out. > >> That > >> doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he replies "I > >> don't know, you have defeated me" > > >> > BTW > >> > can anyone reveal > >> > who is the nasty pig anonymous > >> > that is less than one year on this ng !!!. > >> > and is calling himself Inertial =artful > > >> You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when using a > >> different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought that was > >> obvious. > > > ----------------------- > > are you by any chance PD ??? (:-) > > ---------------------- > > Are you? Silly me .. I forgot .. you are Joseph Goebbels. ---------------- (:-) i like your humor sense anyway here is my question again and lets see if inertial can ansewr a simple question just by yes or no : is the Plank time ie 5.38 exp -44 seconds again 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS.. is it time dependent or not ?? just 'yes' or 'no' please no stories from the beginning of Universe to its end !! TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 23 Mar 2010 07:28 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:69baa3b5-5ac0-4703-99dc-315bb7e7a8f0(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 23, 1:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:825d5df4-dc7b-4e35-b649-a6e1e20c28d6(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 23, 12:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:6c0d19bb-b079-4a62-be63-91cfb06037d6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Here is mybetterdefinition about the range >> >> >> > in which the real single photon energy emission should be found >> >> >> > (in >> >> >> > future !!! it was not yet been found!! >> >> >> >> > E single photon = hf n >> >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf >> >> >> You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense >> >> >> >> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range >> >> >> >> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 >> >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1 >> >> >> >> > 2 >> >> >> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it >> >> >> There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0 >> >> >> >> > you need for it >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells >> >> >> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated >> >> >> > by photon electric cells ) >> >> >> >> > b >> >> >> > a Led torch >> >> >> > c >> >> >> > the experiment must be in a background light >> >> >> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!.. >> >> >> > iow light wave that is long enough >> >> >> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit ) >> >> >> >> > so >> >> >> > 1 >> >> >> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells >> >> >> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!! >> >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second etc ) >> >> >> >> > 2 >> >> >> > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you >> >> >> > calculator >> >> >> > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then >> >> >> > *disappear* >> >> >> > 3 >> >> >> > what do you get there ?? >> >> >> >> > some hints: >> >> >> > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the >> >> >> > calculator activation ('life time' )-- >> >> >> >> > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION* >> >> >> > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!** >> >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does >> >> NOT >> >> prove your >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. >> >> >> >> > (in our case less than a second >> >> >> > but more then zero time !!! >> >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does >> >> NOT >> >> prove your >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. >> >> >> >> > Q E D !! >> >> >> There is no QED there >> >> >> >> > historic copyright ! >> >> >> Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense? >> >> >> >> > Yehiel Porat >> >> >> > Mars 2010 >> >> >> > TIA >> >> >> > ------------------ >> >> >> >> and only now after all this long tedious >> >> >> thred >> >> >> i can bring my >> >> >> bottom line 'side product ' (:-) >> >> >> There is none >> >> >> >> the sensational pick antic >> >> >> side product innovation >> >> >> punch line : >> >> >> >> since we found in this thread that the >> >> >> smallest photon energy is : >> >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 Joules >> >> >> inorder to find the >> >> >> No .. you found nothing of the sort >> >> >> >> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!! >> >> >> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by >> >> >> c^2 >> >> >> 9 exp16!! >> >> >> and we get >> >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16 >> >> >> and we get the >> >> >> smallest PHOTON MASS : >> >> >> Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest >> >> photon >> >> mass >> >> (because photon mass is zero) >> >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> Smallest photon **mass** >> >> >> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> Nonsense .. even with === around it >> >> >> >> and mind you >> >> >> there is jsut one kind of mass >> >> >> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one >> >> >> Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length. >> >> >> That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a >> >> relativistic >> >> mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a >> >> measurement >> >> of >> >> different things. >> >> >> Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both >> >> lengths >> >> >> >> there is the MKS system >> >> >> >> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM >> >> >> just the MKS >> >> >> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !! >> >> >> noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone is >> >> disputing as though they are. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> >> indeed fantastically small mass >> >> >> and only now you can start to understand why >> >> >> people said that the photon mass is >> >> >> practically zero!! >> >> >> but now i say >> >> >> practically is not necessarily theoretically !! >> >> >> Yes .. theoretically >> >> >> >> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important >> >> >> You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary >> >> numbers >> >> and >> >> multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. >> >> That >> >> is >> >> just nonsense. >> >> >> >> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in >> >> >> money saving uses !! >> >> >> from now on( i think) >> >> >> there is no use anymore to look for >> >> >> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!! >> >> >> because there is nothing like that >> >> >> >> old Catto said : >> >> >> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! >> >> >> so >> >> >> >> to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive >> >> >> TIME !!! >> >> >> for further advance . >> >> >> >> copyright Yehiel Porat >> >> >> March 2010 >> >> >> More nonsense copyrighted >> >> >> >> TIA >> >> >> Y.Porat >> >> >> --------------------------------------- >> >> >> > Paul Draper was defeated >> >> > and refuses to admit it !!! >> >> >> Never happened. >> >> >> > i was asking him two simple questions >> >> > 1 >> >> > is the Planck Time definition as >> >> > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... >> >> >> No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around 5.39x10^-44 >> >> seconds. >> >> Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is >> >> dependent >> >> on the units of measure. >> >> >> > (it is defined by seconds) >> >> >> No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds (or >> >> any >> >> other unit) >> >> >> > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? >> >> >> That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. >> >> What >> >> do >> >> you mean by a time dependent time duration? >> >> >> > 2 >> >> > who was the first one to shggest >> >> > the Planck time >> >> > as >> >> > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR >> >> > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY >> >> > TO BE EMITTED ?? >> >> >> Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the >> >> smallest >> >> quanta of >> >> time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense. >> >> >> But I'm sure others have said that before you. >> >> >> > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) >> >> >> He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find out. >> >> That >> >> doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he replies >> >> "I >> >> don't know, you have defeated me" >> >> >> > BTW >> >> > can anyone reveal >> >> > who is the nasty pig anonymous >> >> > that is less than one year on this ng !!!. >> >> > and is calling himself Inertial =artful >> >> >> You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when using >> >> a >> >> different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought that >> >> was >> >> obvious. >> >> > ----------------------- >> > are you by any chance PD ??? (:-) >> > ---------------------- >> >> Are you? Silly me .. I forgot .. you are Joseph Goebbels. > > ---------------- > (:-) > i like your humor sense > anyway > here is my question again > and lets see if inertial can ansewr a simple question just by > yes > or no : > is the Plank time ie > 5.38 exp -44 seconds Yes (approximately) > again > > 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS.. Still yes. Planck time hasn't change since you last asked me. Its value does not change over time (so in that sense it is not time dependent :):)) > is it time dependent or not ?? What does "is a time duration time dependent" even mean? Is the numerical value of it dependent on the units of measure you use. Yes ... of course .. like everything we measure, the numerical value is unit dependent. > just 'yes' or 'no' Can't .. that would be dishonest. We first have to work out what the hell you are actually asking. 'Is Planck time time dependent' .. what sort of a stupid question is that? If you can explain exactly what you mean by that, then I will answer it, > please no stories from the beginning of Universe > to its end !! Once upon a time, long long ago, Porat was born .... > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------- >
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 07:52 On Mar 23, 1:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:69baa3b5-5ac0-4703-99dc-315bb7e7a8f0(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 23, 1:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:825d5df4-dc7b-4e35-b649-a6e1e20c28d6(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 23, 12:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:6c0d19bb-b079-4a62-be63-91cfb06037d6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > Here is mybetterdefinition about the range > >> >> >> > in which the real single photon energy emission should be found > >> >> >> > (in > >> >> >> > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > >> >> >> > E single photon = hf n > > >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf > > >> >> You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense > > >> >> >> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > >> >> >> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 > > >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1 > > >> >> >> > 2 > >> >> >> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it > > >> >> There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0 > > >> >> >> > you need for it > > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells > >> >> >> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated > >> >> >> > by photon electric cells ) > > >> >> >> > b > >> >> >> > a Led torch > >> >> >> > c > >> >> >> > the experiment must be in a background light > >> >> >> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!.. > >> >> >> > iow light wave that is long enough > >> >> >> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit ) > > >> >> >> > so > >> >> >> > 1 > >> >> >> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells > >> >> >> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!! > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! > >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second etc ) > > >> >> >> > 2 > >> >> >> > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you > >> >> >> > calculator > >> >> >> > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then > >> >> >> > *disappear* > >> >> >> > 3 > >> >> >> > what do you get there ?? > > >> >> >> > some hints: > >> >> >> > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the > >> >> >> > calculator activation ('life time' )-- > > >> >> >> > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION* > >> >> >> > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!** > > >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does > >> >> NOT > >> >> prove your > >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > >> >> >> > (in our case less than a second > >> >> >> > but more then zero time !!! > > >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does > >> >> NOT > >> >> prove your > >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > >> >> >> > Q E D !! > > >> >> There is no QED there > > >> >> >> > historic copyright ! > > >> >> Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense? > > >> >> >> > Yehiel Porat > >> >> >> > Mars 2010 > >> >> >> > TIA > >> >> >> > ------------------ > > >> >> >> and only now after all this long tedious > >> >> >> thred > >> >> >> i can bring my > >> >> >> bottom line 'side product ' (:-) > > >> >> There is none > > >> >> >> the sensational pick antic > >> >> >> side product innovation > >> >> >> punch line : > > >> >> >> since we found in this thread that the > >> >> >> smallest photon energy is : > > >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 Joules > >> >> >> inorder to find the > > >> >> No .. you found nothing of the sort > > >> >> >> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!! > >> >> >> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by > >> >> >> c^2 > >> >> >> 9 exp16!! > >> >> >> and we get > > >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16 > >> >> >> and we get the > >> >> >> smallest PHOTON MASS : > > >> >> Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest > >> >> photon > >> >> mass > >> >> (because photon mass is zero) > > >> >> >> ===================== > >> >> >> Smallest photon **mass** > >> >> >> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! > >> >> >> ===================== > > >> >> Nonsense .. even with === around it > > >> >> >> and mind you > >> >> >> there is jsut one kind of mass > >> >> >> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one > > >> >> Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length. > > >> >> That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a > >> >> relativistic > >> >> mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a > >> >> measurement > >> >> of > >> >> different things. > > >> >> Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both > >> >> lengths > > >> >> >> there is the MKS system > > >> >> >> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM > >> >> >> just the MKS > >> >> >> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !! > > >> >> noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone is > >> >> disputing as though they are. > > >> >> >> ------------------------------- > >> >> >> indeed fantastically small mass > >> >> >> and only now you can start to understand why > >> >> >> people said that the photon mass is > >> >> >> practically zero!! > >> >> >> but now i say > >> >> >> practically is not necessarily theoretically !! > > >> >> Yes .. theoretically > > >> >> >> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important > > >> >> You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary > >> >> numbers > >> >> and > >> >> multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. > >> >> That > >> >> is > >> >> just nonsense. > > >> >> >> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in > >> >> >> money saving uses !! > >> >> >> from now on( i think) > >> >> >> there is no use anymore to look for > >> >> >> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!! > >> >> >> because there is nothing like that > > >> >> >> old Catto said : > >> >> >> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! > >> >> >> so > > >> >> >> to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive > >> >> >> TIME !!! > >> >> >> for further advance . > > >> >> >> copyright Yehiel Porat > >> >> >> March 2010 > > >> >> More nonsense copyrighted > > >> >> >> TIA > >> >> >> Y.Porat > >> >> >> --------------------------------------- > > >> >> > Paul Draper was defeated > >> >> > and refuses to admit it !!! > > >> >> Never happened. > > >> >> > i was asking him two simple questions > >> >> > 1 > >> >> > is the Planck Time definition as > >> >> > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... > > >> >> No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around 5.39x10^-44 > >> >> seconds. > >> >> Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is > >> >> dependent > >> >> on the units of measure. > > >> >> > (it is defined by seconds) > > >> >> No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds (or > >> >> any > >> >> other unit) > > >> >> > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > >> >> That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. > >> >> What > >> >> do > >> >> you mean by a time dependent time duration? > > >> >> > 2 > >> >> > who was the first one to shggest > >> >> > the Planck time > >> >> > as > >> >> > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR > >> >> > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY > >> >> > TO BE EMITTED ?? > > >> >> Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the > >> >> smallest > >> >> quanta of > >> >> time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense. > > >> >> But I'm sure others have said that before you. > > >> >> > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) > > >> >> He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find out. > >> >> That > >> >> doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he replies > >> >> "I > >> >> don't know, you have defeated me" > > >> >> > BTW > >> >> > can anyone reveal > >> >> > who is the nasty pig anonymous > >> >> > that is less than one year on this ng !!!. > >> >> > and is calling himself Inertial =artful > > >> >> You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when using > >> >> a > >> >> different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought that > >> >> was > >> >> obvious. > > >> > ----------------------- > >> > are you by any chance PD ??? (:-) > >> > ---------------------- > > >> Are you? Silly me .. I forgot .. you are Joseph Goebbels. > > > ---------------- > > (:-) > > i like your humor sense > > anyway > > here is my question again > > and lets see if inertial can ansewr a simple question just by > > yes > > or no : > > is the Plank time ie > > 5.38 exp -44 seconds > > Yes (approximately) > > > again > > > 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS.. > > Still yes. Planck time hasn't change since you last asked me. Its value > does not change over time (so in that sense it is not time dependent :):)) > > > is it time dependent or not ?? > > What does "is a time duration time dependent" even mean? > > Is the numerical value of it dependent on the units of measure you use. Yes > .. of course .. like everything we measure, the numerical value is unit > dependent. > > > just 'yes' or 'no' > > Can't .. that would be dishonest. We first have to work out what the hell > you are actually asking. 'Is Planck time time dependent' .. what sort of a > stupid question is that? If you can explain exactly what you mean by that, > then I will answer it, > > > please no stories from the beginning of Universe > > to its end !! > > Once upon a time, long long ago, Porat was born .... > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------- ok fine at last!! you said YES and thank you for that (actually you had no choice- as a sane sober person ...) no need for more much mumbligs from the beginning of the universe untilll the end if it though it might be connected to the beginning of universe since listen carefully NO ONE CAN IMAGINE OR TALK SENSIBLY ABOUT A SHORTER TIME IN PHYSICS **AND THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THAT TIME** for smallest photon emission of energy !! AND NOT YOUR SILLY SECOND!! now *why* PD could not answer that simple question??!! i will tell you why because it s implications are FAR GOING AND REFUTING HIM AND YOU and your claims -- (about one whole second ) just at the top of this thread that any one can see above !! and you cant cheat about those RECORDED (just above ) facts -------------------- anyway let u s go to my second question DID ANYONE BEFORE ME SUGGESTED THAT PLANK TIME AS THE DURATION OF THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION ?? how about yes ?? or no ?? or i don t know ??? TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 23 Mar 2010 08:04
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b3262e37-a178-47a7-869a-3a2b26cc9872(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 23, 1:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:69baa3b5-5ac0-4703-99dc-315bb7e7a8f0(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mar 23, 1:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:825d5df4-dc7b-4e35-b649-a6e1e20c28d6(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Mar 23, 12:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:6c0d19bb-b079-4a62-be63-91cfb06037d6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > Here is mybetterdefinition about the range >> >> >> >> > in which the real single photon energy emission should be >> >> >> >> > found >> >> >> >> > (in >> >> >> >> > future !!! it was not yet been found!! >> >> >> >> >> > E single photon = hf n >> >> >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf >> >> >> >> You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense >> >> >> >> >> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range >> >> >> >> >> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 >> >> >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1 >> >> >> >> >> > 2 >> >> >> >> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0 >> >> >> >> >> > you need for it >> >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells >> >> >> >> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated >> >> >> >> > by photon electric cells ) >> >> >> >> >> > b >> >> >> >> > a Led torch >> >> >> >> > c >> >> >> >> > the experiment must be in a background light >> >> >> >> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!.. >> >> >> >> > iow light wave that is long enough >> >> >> >> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit ) >> >> >> >> >> > so >> >> >> >> > 1 >> >> >> >> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells >> >> >> >> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!! >> >> >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! >> >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second etc ) >> >> >> >> >> > 2 >> >> >> >> > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you >> >> >> >> > calculator >> >> >> >> > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then >> >> >> >> > *disappear* >> >> >> >> > 3 >> >> >> >> > what do you get there ?? >> >> >> >> >> > some hints: >> >> >> >> > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the >> >> >> >> > calculator activation ('life time' )-- >> >> >> >> >> > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION* >> >> >> >> > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!** >> >> >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That >> >> >> does >> >> >> NOT >> >> >> prove your >> >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. >> >> >> >> >> > (in our case less than a second >> >> >> >> > but more then zero time !!! >> >> >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That >> >> >> does >> >> >> NOT >> >> >> prove your >> >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. >> >> >> >> >> > Q E D !! >> >> >> >> There is no QED there >> >> >> >> >> > historic copyright ! >> >> >> >> Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense? >> >> >> >> >> > Yehiel Porat >> >> >> >> > Mars 2010 >> >> >> >> > TIA >> >> >> >> > ------------------ >> >> >> >> >> and only now after all this long tedious >> >> >> >> thred >> >> >> >> i can bring my >> >> >> >> bottom line 'side product ' (:-) >> >> >> >> There is none >> >> >> >> >> the sensational pick antic >> >> >> >> side product innovation >> >> >> >> punch line : >> >> >> >> >> since we found in this thread that the >> >> >> >> smallest photon energy is : >> >> >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 Joules >> >> >> >> inorder to find the >> >> >> >> No .. you found nothing of the sort >> >> >> >> >> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!! >> >> >> >> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by >> >> >> >> c^2 >> >> >> >> 9 exp16!! >> >> >> >> and we get >> >> >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16 >> >> >> >> and we get the >> >> >> >> smallest PHOTON MASS : >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest >> >> >> photon >> >> >> mass >> >> >> (because photon mass is zero) >> >> >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> >> Smallest photon **mass** >> >> >> >> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! >> >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> >> Nonsense .. even with === around it >> >> >> >> >> and mind you >> >> >> >> there is jsut one kind of mass >> >> >> >> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one >> >> >> >> Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length. >> >> >> >> That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a >> >> >> relativistic >> >> >> mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a >> >> >> measurement >> >> >> of >> >> >> different things. >> >> >> >> Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both >> >> >> lengths >> >> >> >> >> there is the MKS system >> >> >> >> >> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM >> >> >> >> just the MKS >> >> >> >> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !! >> >> >> >> noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone >> >> >> is >> >> >> disputing as though they are. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> >> >> indeed fantastically small mass >> >> >> >> and only now you can start to understand why >> >> >> >> people said that the photon mass is >> >> >> >> practically zero!! >> >> >> >> but now i say >> >> >> >> practically is not necessarily theoretically !! >> >> >> >> Yes .. theoretically >> >> >> >> >> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely >> >> >> >> important >> >> >> >> You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary >> >> >> numbers >> >> >> and >> >> >> multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. >> >> >> That >> >> >> is >> >> >> just nonsense. >> >> >> >> >> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in >> >> >> >> money saving uses !! >> >> >> >> from now on( i think) >> >> >> >> there is no use anymore to look for >> >> >> >> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!! >> >> >> >> because there is nothing like that >> >> >> >> >> old Catto said : >> >> >> >> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! >> >> >> >> so >> >> >> >> >> to save a lot of human resources and not least save >> >> >> >> inexpensive >> >> >> >> TIME !!! >> >> >> >> for further advance . >> >> >> >> >> copyright Yehiel Porat >> >> >> >> March 2010 >> >> >> >> More nonsense copyrighted >> >> >> >> >> TIA >> >> >> >> Y.Porat >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> > Paul Draper was defeated >> >> >> > and refuses to admit it !!! >> >> >> >> Never happened. >> >> >> >> > i was asking him two simple questions >> >> >> > 1 >> >> >> > is the Planck Time definition as >> >> >> > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... >> >> >> >> No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around >> >> >> 5.39x10^-44 >> >> >> seconds. >> >> >> Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is >> >> >> dependent >> >> >> on the units of measure. >> >> >> >> > (it is defined by seconds) >> >> >> >> No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds >> >> >> (or >> >> >> any >> >> >> other unit) >> >> >> >> > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? >> >> >> >> That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. >> >> >> What >> >> >> do >> >> >> you mean by a time dependent time duration? >> >> >> >> > 2 >> >> >> > who was the first one to shggest >> >> >> > the Planck time >> >> >> > as >> >> >> > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR >> >> >> > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY >> >> >> > TO BE EMITTED ?? >> >> >> >> Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the >> >> >> smallest >> >> >> quanta of >> >> >> time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense. >> >> >> >> But I'm sure others have said that before you. >> >> >> >> > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) >> >> >> >> He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find >> >> >> out. >> >> >> That >> >> >> doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he >> >> >> replies >> >> >> "I >> >> >> don't know, you have defeated me" >> >> >> >> > BTW >> >> >> > can anyone reveal >> >> >> > who is the nasty pig anonymous >> >> >> > that is less than one year on this ng !!!. >> >> >> > and is calling himself Inertial =artful >> >> >> >> You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when >> >> >> using >> >> >> a >> >> >> different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought >> >> >> that >> >> >> was >> >> >> obvious. >> >> >> > ----------------------- >> >> > are you by any chance PD ??? (:-) >> >> > ---------------------- >> >> >> Are you? Silly me .. I forgot .. you are Joseph Goebbels. >> >> > ---------------- >> > (:-) >> > i like your humor sense >> > anyway >> > here is my question again >> > and lets see if inertial can ansewr a simple question just by >> > yes >> > or no : >> > is the Plank time ie >> > 5.38 exp -44 seconds >> >> Yes (approximately) >> >> > again >> >> > 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS.. >> >> Still yes. Planck time hasn't change since you last asked me. Its value >> does not change over time (so in that sense it is not time dependent >> :):)) >> >> > is it time dependent or not ?? >> >> What does "is a time duration time dependent" even mean? >> >> Is the numerical value of it dependent on the units of measure you use. >> Yes >> .. of course .. like everything we measure, the numerical value is unit >> dependent. >> >> > just 'yes' or 'no' >> >> Can't .. that would be dishonest. We first have to work out what the >> hell >> you are actually asking. 'Is Planck time time dependent' .. what sort of >> a >> stupid question is that? If you can explain exactly what you mean by >> that, >> then I will answer it, >> >> > please no stories from the beginning of Universe >> > to its end !! >> >> Once upon a time, long long ago, Porat was born .... >> >> > TIA >> > Y.Porat >> > ----------------------- > > ok fine at last!! > you said YES > and thank you for that Its the same answer I've given for the last few post. Apparently you have troubles reading and understanding answer of more than one word. > (actually you had no choice- as a sane sober person ...) > > no need for more much mumbligs > from the beginning of the universe untilll the end if it > though > it might be connected to the beginning of universe since > listen carefully > NO ONE CAN IMAGINE OR TALK SENSIBLY ABOUT A SHORTER TIME > IN PHYSICS > **AND THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THAT TIME** for smallest photon > emission of energy !! > AND NOT YOUR SILLY SECOND!! LIAR (again). I have NEVER claimed it takes a second. No-one in physics claims that. The ONLY person to make the claim that photon emission takes place in a second was you. You say stupid things, then say that others claim them and then argue against them. That is dishonest and cheating. > now *why* PD could not answer that simple question??!! You'd have to ask him . Personally, I just don't think he is bothered replying to such stupid questions, and dose not want to deal with your dishonesty. > i will tell you why > because it s implications are FAR GOING > AND REFUTING HIM AND YOU > and your claims -- Nonsense > (about one whole second ) I have made no claims about one second being in any way special. The only one who has done so was you. > just at the top of this thread > that any one can see above !! > and you cant cheat about those > RECORDED (just above ) facts > -------------------- I am not the cheat. You are. So where is it you think me saying photon emission is a second? Show it. > anyway > let u s go to my second question And hope noone notices your dishonesty. > DID ANYONE BEFORE ME > SUGGESTED THAT PLANK TIME > AS THE DURATION OF THE SMALLEST > PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION ?? Yes .. me. I answered that already a couple of times. Again, you cannot seem to understand anything beyond single word answers. How long the energy (E = hf) in the energy packet that is a photon to be used depends on what processes start with that energy (eg releasing an electron and causing a current to flow in your trivial LED torch and calculator example) However, the creation of a photon (ie a packet of energy E = hf), and destruction of a photon, MUST take place within the smallest quanta of time (if time is quantised .. otherwise in zero time). There can be no time when it only partly exists. I've told you this many times in recent threads. That is probably where you cheated and now dishonestly claim it was your idea. > how about > yes ?? > or no ?? > or i don t know ??? > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------- > |