Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 25 Mar 2010 10:24 On Mar 25, 1:30 pm, ben6993 > > tosplitting that big photon to smaller photons > > des it make sense to you ??? > > I see it differently. Different quanta can have different energies. > > > but i am looking for the one > > WITH ONLY ONE AMOUNT OF ENERGY!! > > that is all the dispute here !!! > > Yes, I agree that this is the cause of the differences in viewpoints. > You are looking for a basic smallest-energy photon, whereas all > photons are indivisible but yet are not all identical. And there is > no smallest-energy photon. > > > let s forgot now even the photon and electron issue > > ---------------- > > now at last a have a question to you > > AS FAR AS YOU KNOW > > and no mater if it is right or wrong !! > > > who was (is) the first one to suggest the Planck time > > as the emission time for the smallest possible > > PHOTON ENERGY !! > > On Feb 21, 10:10 pm, Artful wrote: > "Here is a logical proof for you that an indivisible object MUST be > created instantly." Etc etc. ... > ------------------ so he said and waht is that etc etc and where is the Planck time here ?? artful sais all laong that the single photon energy formula is W=hf while f is obviously one second dependent just ahve a look at the first posts above ]it is right in front of your eyes there so where is he and where is the Plank time !!!!!!! that suggested you can see it as well if you follow the thread NO ONE CAN CHEAT ABOUT DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE !! i was asking who was the first one!! and who is a cheap psychopathpif that don know even how to be a beginner thief !!! 2 do you know about evidence *beyond this thread **??? and pease dont forget my question is about suggesting for thew first time the Planck time as the time duration of creating the smallest singlephoton!! (the nasty pig Inertial does not agree even that enefy emission of phootns is time dependent and if he does it is only after months of my braking my fingers typing -to show it is time dependent !! (as i see even you until this moment still dont agree that the minimal photon energy emisission is **time dependent** thje Plank time **is TIME DEPENDENT ** ) so he certainly does not agree with it so how can you say that he SUGGESTED THE PLANK TIME THERE ????!! while the above documentation with the attached dated to it shoes that he jus t stole it from me in a way that only a halfwit psychopath Goebbels could dare to do !! (underestimating the basic intelligence of 1500 readers !!) TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------- ---------- -------------- right ?? and i showed in my trivial experiment that single photons are created in less than a second btw you compair what i contributed in this thread to Inertials leching and cheating ?? while i was the innitiator of all that issue leading the whole issue here he just responded as a mad pig and ddint stop relating my innovations to himself ddin you notice it?? anyone who will follow this thread from start to end will see a behevios of a nasty pig and what that mad dog thief did ?? > That is the earliest time, I think, at which I met the idea of > instantaneous emission in these threads.
From: ben6993 on 25 Mar 2010 10:56 On Mar 25, 2:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip for brevity> Take it easy. I am confident that no one here but you believes your formula, so why are you continually worried about anyone stealing it? Also, why not save all your posts in a text file on your own hard drive if you do not trust being able to find them again in a google search. Then you won't need to keep asking about who said what and when. Planck's time was implicit in Artful's logic. If a creation event occurs such that 0='not present' and 1=present, then in successive instants of time there will be say: 000000000001111111111111 etc. The creation happens instantaneously, ie in one instant 'it' is not there, in the very next instant 'it' is there. The smallest interval of time that we can use is Planck time. Which you can think of as the time interval from one instant to the adjoining instant. It is expressed more fully than this in the original postings circa Feb 21. I, and probably others, used Planck's time in a posting to try to stop you having apoplexy about the impossibility of anything happening 'instantaneously'. We can't say anything about events in time of less duration than Planck time. Regards Ben
From: Y.Porat on 25 Mar 2010 11:09 On Mar 25, 4:56 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 2:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip for brevity> > > Take it easy. > > I am confident that no one here but you believes your formula, so why > are you continually worried about anyone stealing it? Also, why not > save all your posts in a text file on your own hard drive if you do > not trust being able to find them again in a google search. Then you > won't need to keep asking about who said what and when. > > Planck's time was implicit in Artful's logic. If a creation event > occurs such that 0='not present' and 1=present, then in successive > instants of time there will be say: 000000000001111111111111 etc. > > The creation happens instantaneously, ie in one instant 'it' is not > there, in the very next instant 'it' is there. > The smallest interval of time that we can use is Planck time. Which > you can think of as the time interval from one instant to the > adjoining instant. It is expressed more fully than this in the > original postings circa Feb 21. I, and probably others, used Planck's > time in a posting to try to stop you having apoplexy about the > impossibility of anything happening 'instantaneously'. We can't say > anything about events in time of less duration than Planck time. > > Regards > > Ben ----------------------- ok now we have a documented evidence black on while that BEN 669 IS = ARTFUL = INERTIAL TH E RETARDER PSYCHOPATH CROOK AND SHAMELESS THIEF !! that Josef Goebbels could be proud of !!! bye Y.Porat -----------------------------------------
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 11:13 On Mar 25, 10:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 4:56 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip for brevity> > > > Take it easy. > > > I am confident that no one here but you believes your formula, so why > > are you continually worried about anyone stealing it? Also, why not > > save all your posts in a text file on your own hard drive if you do > > not trust being able to find them again in a google search. Then you > > won't need to keep asking about who said what and when. > > > Planck's time was implicit in Artful's logic. If a creation event > > occurs such that 0='not present' and 1=present, then in successive > > instants of time there will be say: 000000000001111111111111 etc. > > > The creation happens instantaneously, ie in one instant 'it' is not > > there, in the very next instant 'it' is there. > > The smallest interval of time that we can use is Planck time. Which > > you can think of as the time interval from one instant to the > > adjoining instant. It is expressed more fully than this in the > > original postings circa Feb 21. I, and probably others, used Planck's > > time in a posting to try to stop you having apoplexy about the > > impossibility of anything happening 'instantaneously'. We can't say > > anything about events in time of less duration than Planck time. > > > Regards > > > Ben > > ----------------------- > ok > now we have a documented evidence > black on while that > > BEN 669 IS = ARTFUL = INERTIAL > TH E RETARDER PSYCHOPATH CROOK > AND SHAMELESS THIEF !! Oh, good grief. Pathological. > that Josef Goebbels could be proud of !!! > > bye > Y.Porat > -----------------------------------------
From: ben6993 on 25 Mar 2010 11:13
On Mar 25, 3:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 4:56 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip for brevity> > > > Take it easy. > > > I am confident that no one here but you believes your formula, so why > > are you continually worried about anyone stealing it? Also, why not > > save all your posts in a text file on your own hard drive if you do > > not trust being able to find them again in a google search. Then you > > won't need to keep asking about who said what and when. > > > Planck's time was implicit in Artful's logic. If a creation event > > occurs such that 0='not present' and 1=present, then in successive > > instants of time there will be say: 000000000001111111111111 etc. > > > The creation happens instantaneously, ie in one instant 'it' is not > > there, in the very next instant 'it' is there. > > The smallest interval of time that we can use is Planck time. Which > > you can think of as the time interval from one instant to the > > adjoining instant. It is expressed more fully than this in the > > original postings circa Feb 21. I, and probably others, used Planck's > > time in a posting to try to stop you having apoplexy about the > > impossibility of anything happening 'instantaneously'. We can't say > > anything about events in time of less duration than Planck time. > > > Regards > > > Ben > > ----------------------- > ok > now we have a documented evidence > black on while that > > BEN 669 IS = ARTFUL = INERTIAL > TH E RETARDER PSYCHOPATH CROOK > AND SHAMELESS THIEF !! > that Josef Goebbels could be proud of !!! > > bye > Y.Porat > ------------------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Your logic is again unfathomable. There is no point in further discussion. Bye |