Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 25 Mar 2010 11:52 On Mar 25, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 9:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 11:36 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > <snip for brevity> > > > > > ------------------- > > > > ok > > > > i beleive you > > > > Acknowledged. > > > > > yet i cant understand how blocked you are on paradigms > > > > after all those long discussions explaantions experimental data etc > > > > let me tray a gain with you : > > > > do you understand that > > > > the *amount* of photon energy is > > > > time dependent ?? > > > > No, I don't see it like that. > > > > A photon is emitted with a certain amount of energy. It keeps that > > > energy during its lifetime. It yields up that exact amount of energy > > > when it is absorbed. I knew that before these threads started. > > > > What I have realised during the threads, thanks to Inertial, is that > > > the indivisibility of the energy goes beyond the one-off emission--> > > > transmission --> absorption. An atom can only emit a photon of a > > > certain energy if it already held that exact amount of indivisible > > > energy inside the atom. From this viewpoint the energy in a photon is > > > indestructable and who knows how many times a particular chunk of > > > indivisible energy is re-emitted over and over again. That chunk of > > > energy can never be a part of a less energetic photon. It can never > > > be a part of a more energetic photon. It must always be emitted as a > > > photon of exactly that amount of energy. I am still letting that sink > > > in myself as it is quite amazing, really. > > > > > i dont mind(at this point ) how it is created > > > > how a photon is born how it is dying > > > > i mind the bottom line experimental data > > > > do you understand that the amount of energy it carries > > > > is time dependent ?? > > > > See above. The energy of that particular individual photon is a fixed > > > constant for all time, not just in the current emission. > > > > > 2 > > > > do you understand that the amount of photon energy > > > > that are active less then a a second > > > > **is less** than that that is active during *one second ??* > > > > > even if it was done b many (actually a huge number of single photons > > > > that no one of them was active > > > > one second but less than one second ?? > > > > You may be surprised that I actually find it hard to follow what you > > > mean by the above as what you are writing seems so different from the > > > way I see it. From my point of view the energy in a photon is an > > > indivisible constant. (But different photons can have different > > > energies, of course.) It does not really matter how long it is > > > "active" (if you mean by active ... "how long it is in > > > transmission"). If you mean by "active" ... "how long it is in > > > emission" then that is from one instant to the next i.e. emitted > > > within a Planck time interval. > > > > I just can't see how time affects the energy in a photon. It is a > > > constant in emission and re-emission who knows how many times that > > > energy in a particular photon can be re-emitted. > > > > > 3 > > > > do you understand that if so > > > > E=hf that is one second defined > > > > because f is one second defined !!!-!!!!--- > > > > > ----> is not the definition niether of one single *real* photon > > > > nor of many of them acting less then a second ???of > > > > iow > > > > ***there are real single photons** > > > > (no matter how many of them but all of them > > > > were active **less** than a second ) > > > I paused after para 2. above and skipped para 3. as enough differences > > > had already occurred. Save para 3. for another day as there is enough > > > in 1. and 2, I believe. > > > > Ben > > > ---------------------- > > if it is so hard for you > > let us discus the **photoelectric** effect: > > > the photoelectic effect shows us two things > > NOT JUST ONE THING > > > 1 > > THAT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY > > THAT PHOTONS CARRY IS > > TIME DEPENDENT! > > (because it is delivering its energy to the electrons!!) > > AND ELECTRONS IN THAT EFFECT FLOW > > IN A CONSTANT STREAM THAT IS LINEARLY > > PROPORTIONAL TO ELAPSE OF TIME > > it can be measured by an Ampermeter > > while an ampere meter measures the number of electrons passing as > > a function of time! > > right ?? > > > 2 > > that above flow of electrons in the photoelectric effect > > can be done > > (under the same exact start conditions > > as in case 1 !!) ----> > > IN LESS THAN A SECOND as well !! > > (ie the same electron intensity flow > > during less then a second as well )!!! > > right?? > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------- > > Porat, I cannot believe you are having difficulty with this, so I'm > going to give you a simple example so you can see. > > Consider raindrops. Raindrops come in different sizes, some large, > some small. The amount of water in a raindrop is related to its > diameter. But once a raindrop is created, the amount of water in it is > the same. > > Now, you can look at a pail of water in a rainstorm, and you can ask, > "Is the amount of water in the bucket time dependent?" The answer is > obviously yes. If you wait for two hours, the amount of water in the > bucket will be twice as much as the amount of water in one hour. > > But if you then conclude from this statement that the amount of water > in a raindrop is time-dependent, and that a raindrop that takes two > hours to arrive is twice as large as a raindrop that takes one hour to > arrive, then you've obviously made a big mistake. > > The reason there is twice as much water in the bucket after two hours > is not because the raindrops took longer to get there and not because > the raindrops are twice as big, but because twice as MANY raindrops > that have landed in the bucket. > > And again, if you ask, is the size of the raindrop related to how long > the raindrop took to get there, the answer is obviously NO. The amount > of water in the raindrop is related to the diameter of the raindrop, > not how long it took to get there. > > And so there is no "smallest raindrop" that has anything to do with > time. > > Now, if you take all of these sentences above and substitute "energy" > for "water", and "photon" for "raindrop", then you should be able to > make some sense of photons. > > PD -------------------- as usual a very nice metaphor but **nothing to do with experimental facts!!** you still donr undersand the basic of physics 1 nothing can be created/done in zero time !! do yuou agree withthat? 2 noting can be done in less than** Planck time** because less than that is BEYOND OUT ABILITY TO DETECT OR TO MEASURE !!! 3 even the Plank time IS TIME DEPENDENT ddi you get it at last ??? 5.38 exp -44 SECONDS is time dependent do you see that?? it is not zero time while youdaid instantaneous it is hand waving not even science according to Paul Draper preachings !! if you wee consistent with YOURSELF you shoUld say plank time DURATION is a scientific claim if it was the opposite situation and i would say istananeous and you whold say Planck time you would consuer youself a scientist amd me - a hand waiver!! just try to be honest and forget Ego interests !! 4 you ignored or didnt understand the meaning of my simple experiment !!! a we are not dealing about how photons are created or disapper!! WE AR DEALING ONLY WITH THE ENERGY THEY CARRY (YOUR RQINEXAMPLE) BUT IT IS MORE THAN JUST THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY AT TH END OF THE DAY IT IS HOW IT IS DONE ALL ALONG THAT TIME DURATION my experinet zooms in any fraction of a second that that process is going on it is not only at the begining and the end it is all along the time if i take you metaphor i dont know only how thw whater is carried as a geberal knowlwdge i know it in much more detailed !! i methaphorically take and look not only what happen in a big bucket i take very little buckets and flollow them each fraction of a second so i can see not only the gross amopunt of wahter i can see even the single drops and see that there are not no big drops and small drops i can see tha there are only salldrops and i can see the smallest one ofthem as i say (:-)with the power of a tiny bit of a thinking !! i can 'see'that they come one after the other !! i can see thqt non of them can be smaller than some minimal quantity THE PLANCK TIME 'PRODUCT !!! iow bever smaller than that and even so those little drops of yours come one after the other and each one of them can fill only say 0.1 of my smallest bucket (the Milican experiment ) remember ?? because in my experinet my buckes are the ELECTRONS (of the photoelectric cell )THAT ARE TIME DEPENDENT FILLED UP AND THE COME OUT ONE BY ONE IN A CONSTANT STREAM !! non of those electrons can pop out unless a specific amount of 'rain' was insered in it and all of them can contain only that specific amount of electricity !!! so how about it if you consider that it took me to digest your metaphor and respond in time dependence (:-) of about 15 mimutes including my crippled typing (:-) anyway i am still not sure that i did my best explanation of my thinking thank you for your metaphor (i guess that me or someone else can do it by investing more than 15 minutes . of typing and thinking simultaneous thinking while typing ..... i guess you are not doing such an irresponsible thing (:-) .). ATB Y.Porat -------------- -----------------
From: Inertial on 25 Mar 2010 18:34 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9354b166-1190-4050-999e-49e7b36bba07(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 25, 4:30 am, "Y.P it can be measured by an Ampermeter >> while an ampere meter measures the number of electrons passing as >> a function of time! >> right ?? >> >> 2 >> that above flow of electrons in the photoelectric effect >> can be done >> (under the same exact start conditions >> as in case 1 !!) ----> >> IN LESS THAN A SECOND as well !! >> (ie the same electron intensity flow >> during less then a second as well )!!! >> right?? >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ------------------- > > let i t be clear > that i am not going to discuss with the jumping monkey in panic - > disturbed pig ***lier *** I have never lied .. you have (repeatedly) > anonymous - inertial You scared eh? > (any one that is following this tread all along from the begining > can see that he changed his 'song' > almost 180 degrees -under* my *pressure ) Nope .. never happened .. I have been completely consistent throughtout . YOU STOLE THE IDEA I POSTED > so > i will discuss only with Ben > hoping he is an honest person ... You don't know how to deal with honest people .. other than by attacking them > MR Ben > we see in my torch light and photoelectric experiment > that > if for instance we take a torch that is emitting > (th e same intensity of led light) > say > > in (case 1 ) 0.1 second 1 electrons > and > in (case 2) 0.9 seconds 9 electrons > > will you say that it was done : > > in case 1 by a 'small photon' By many photons > and in case 2 ' 9 times bigger' photon > or may be > case 2 9 times more photons ?? By many MORE photons > (that' spited their 'big quantum' > to 9 smaller quantum s for each electron"""(:-) Noone claims that > we all agree that the photon energy is > **QUANTUM** CHARACTER D > quantum charactered is n not big quantum and small quantum > isn't that so ??) Yes .. and each quantum has E = hf energy > (i hope you know the difference between > Quantum and Quanta !!) You don't .. you got it wrong. Qunata is plural > and if so > the ** number* of photons EMITTED > by the torch (in our experiment - and their energy carrries by them > and transferred to those electrons !!!!) > is > TIME DEPENDENT Because the number of quanta is time dependent > **and not just by one second > but even during > much less than a second !!! Noone (other than you) says photons are second defined .. that is YOUR NONSENSE CLAIM
From: Inertial on 25 Mar 2010 18:44 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:48340297-df38-4028-ae0d-1e2ed421cc1b(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 25, 10:04 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 25, 5:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip for brevity> >> >> >> >> > MR Ben >> > we see in my torch light and photoelectric experiment >> > that >> > if for instance we take a torch that is emitting >> > (th e same intensity of led light) >> > say >> >> > in (case 1 ) 0.1 second 1 electrons >> > and >> > in (case 2) 0.9 seconds 9 electrons >> >> > will you say that it was done : >> >> > in case 1 by a 'small photon' >> >> > and in case 2 ' 9 times bigger' photon >> > or may be >> > case 2 9 times more photons ?? >> >> > (that' spited their 'big quantum' >> > to 9 smaller quantum s for each electron"""(:-) >> > we all agree that the photon energy is >> > **QUANTUM** CHARACTER D >> > quantum charactered is n not big quantum and small quantum >> > isn't that so ??) >> >> > (i hope you know the difference between >> > Quantum and Quanta !!) >> >> > and if so >> > the ** number* of photons EMITTED >> > by the torch (in our experiment - and their energy carrries by them >> > and transferred to those electrons !!!!) >> > is >> > TIME DEPENDENT >> > **and not just by one second >> > but even during >> > much less than a second !!! >> >> OK, let's consider a single photon. >> In special relativity, > -------------- > firs of all thank you for your interesting analysis > yet You are pretending to be courteous .. how sad > if a train were travelling at a speed near c , >> it would shrink in length > ddi you ever think that the gamma factor of relativity > DOES NOT AT ALL APPLY TO THE PHOTON CASE ??!! > because of a simpekl thing: > waht is Gamma for the velocity of the photon c !!!??? > it is a rhetoric question !!.... > in short forget abouit any contaction of photon wave lenght > it can be less wave legths compaired to a moving target > (it the target will run away from the > photon in the velocity c > no wave lenght will hit it !!! > but the wave lenght in its orriginal fram > does not change > AND WE DEAL WITH A PHOTON > IN ITS ORRIGINAL FRAME > no need to complicate things that are > already complicated Heaven forbid we onsider anything that refutes your 'theory' > we have to doth eopposite > to fry tosimplify things as much as possible > AND THAT ID WHY I SUGGESTED TO YOU > NOT TO DEAL AS FOR NOW > WITHTHE QUESTION ABOUT THE HOW PHOOTN > AS IT IS BORN OR DIE > BUT WITH ENERGY ***EMISION > DURING TIME!! What energy emission during time .. you've just said to ignore it all > it makes it much simpler and less speculative !!! Well .. if you ignore everything about a photon's existence, that does make it veryu simple > ------------ > - > > > (maybe only in the direction of travel) to >> nearly Planck length. That is something special about speed c. A >> photon travels at speed c and is also, and necessarily, of size not >> more than one Planck length (maybe only in the direction of travel >> using this reasoning). >> >> A photon is created at the same instant that an electron moves in the >> atom [but surely not every time an electron moves by a Planck length], >> and an electron is a point particle ('point' not implying to me >> absolute zero size but meaning not more than of Planck length). So >> that condition could imply that a photon is less than a Planck length >> in size in all directions. >> ----------- > again we dont deal now about a photon > relations with the electron or Atom > though it is an interesting issue for itself !! > ------------ >> Whereas all electrons are identical, not all photons are identical. >> Even though a photon is contained within a Planck cube size, and is >> created in an instant, it can have large or small energy. > > how by being a big or small photon !!! Big and small energy .. that's what he just said > in thatr casse you get the above mensioned problem of the need > tosplitting that big photon to smaller photons No .. you don't .. there is NO SPLITTING > des it make sense to you ??? No ... it doesn't > -------------------- > Using >> special relativity, you could also imagine shrinking a car or train or >> planet to near quantum size in the direction of travel. Travellling >> at near speed c shrinks lengths of anything no matter how much energy >> it contains. Likewise a single photon, travelling st speed c, can be >> of any amount of energy, depending on the conditions in the atom at >> the time of its emission (though I don't know much about those >> conditions). >> ------------ > see above my remark about > photons and the Gamma factor !! > ------------ >> Are you thinking of all quanta being identical, like all electrons are >> identical? > ---------------- > Bingo !! There is your problem > you start to understand me !!! We understand you already .. that's why we know you are wrong > after all that is all about the QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY !!! Yes .. an photons are quanta. > ----------------------- > > That could explain why you think you need more quanta to >> build up to a particular observed energy in a beam of light? > ------------------ > Bingo !!! There is your problem > ------------------- > Whereas >> a single photon can be as energetic as you like. >> -------------- > a photon with the same **wave length > can be with many energies ! No .. stop twisting what people say > and that is the source of that so vast mistaken paradigm !!!and > conftion !! Noone is saying that .. AGAIN you lie about what others say in order to argue against them and to pretend you are doing something new. that is dishonest > between a photon with a constant wave length > and a so called **SINGLE PHOTON !!! Its the SAME THING > the one with a huge mumber of photons > of the same f is not a single > photon > it ios many many photons with the same f > **lasting one second ** That is COMPLETE AND TOTAL NONSENSE. Photons are not made up of other photons. > not the real smallest single photon We have measured the energy in real single photons .. E = hf > but i am looking for the one > WITH ONLY ONE AMOUNT OF ENERGY!! > that is all the dispute here !!! We have measured the energy in real single photons .. E = hf > ------------------------ >> I am still thinking about whether quanta are truly indivisible > ------------------------ > by definition the idea of **quantum ** > is **not divisible** So a photon IS NOT DIVISIBLE .. it is NOT made up of other 'smaller' photons > or if you like divisible but to smaller ***indivisible units **!!! > that is btw the old Greek Atom idea !! > > the 'quanta' * is **by definition divisible !!! Exactly what we've been explaining to YOU !!! > ----------------- > after >> absorption in the atom as it seems rather pre-darwinian by analogy. >> Ie for all quanta to be created long ago and be immutable seems too >> constrained? A photon is indivisible during transmission as any >> attempt to divide it would destroy the photon. But can a photon be a >> collection of different energies, which are an indivisible aggregate > > even if not a collection of differnt photons If can't be .. its a quantum > a photon that is lasting a long time > that will say collide with a mass will be splited 1 > if for instance it will collide with a prism > it will split to many photons Wrong .. totally > but we assume in our discussion that > we deal with a monochromatic photon Fine > and even a long monochromatic photon > that is colliding with something > will be splitted Wrong > ---------------- >> only for so long as it is in the form of a photon. >> >> A photon is emitted instantaneously, > let me disagree with you because > according to me > nothing can be done instantly!! It means done within a single qunatum of time (if time is qunatised) > to do something an zero time donot go hand in hand > but > let us forget about it right now > because both of us can live with that difference without disturbing > us to go > ahead > iow > it is not relevant to my photon energy emission during a tangible > definite time ! > ------------- Because photon energy is NOT time dependent .. we have proved that > > but the electron (speed < c) must >> take time to find its new place in the atom. As energy is quantised, >> how can the electron always and unerringly find a new niche in the >> atom at just the correct energy level. It is too late to undo the >> emission, if scrabbling to find a niche, as the photon is long gone. >> It is a transaction and calculation done at the moment of emission? >> Or is it not so difficult for an electron to find a niche of any >> required energy level? >>------------- > lets frget now about phton and Atoms Yes .. lets forget about anything that might show you to be wrong > ------------------ >> Also, the motion of the electron cannot cause the photon to be emitted >> as the electron must move many Planck lengths to find its new niche in >> the atom, but only one photon is emitted. >> ----------------- > let s forgot now even the photon and electron issue Yes .. lets forget about anything that might show you to be wrong > ---------------- > 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 !! Me (in these threads) .. when I said photons were created and destroyed within the smallest quantum of time You keep asking .. hoping someone who has NOT read all the threads will say it is you. Because you DISHONESTLY started a NEW thread so that you could make a claim STOLEN FROM ME in the earlier thread and claim it as you own. YOU ARE A FRAUD.
From: Inertial on 25 Mar 2010 19:01 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ce9678d5-269c-4d43-bf63-b1fd413f6419(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 25, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 24, 9:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 24, 11:36 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > <snip for brevity> >> >> > > > ------------------- >> > > > ok >> > > > i beleive you >> >> > > Acknowledged. >> >> > > > yet i cant understand how blocked you are on paradigms >> > > > after all those long discussions explaantions experimental data >> > > > etc >> > > > let me tray a gain with you : >> > > > do you understand that >> > > > the *amount* of photon energy is >> > > > time dependent ?? >> >> > > No, I don't see it like that. >> >> > > A photon is emitted with a certain amount of energy. It keeps that >> > > energy during its lifetime. It yields up that exact amount of energy >> > > when it is absorbed. I knew that before these threads started. >> >> > > What I have realised during the threads, thanks to Inertial, is that >> > > the indivisibility of the energy goes beyond the one-off emission--> >> > > transmission --> absorption. An atom can only emit a photon of a >> > > certain energy if it already held that exact amount of indivisible >> > > energy inside the atom. From this viewpoint the energy in a photon is >> > > indestructable and who knows how many times a particular chunk of >> > > indivisible energy is re-emitted over and over again. That chunk of >> > > energy can never be a part of a less energetic photon. It can never >> > > be a part of a more energetic photon. It must always be emitted as a >> > > photon of exactly that amount of energy. I am still letting that >> > > sink >> > > in myself as it is quite amazing, really. >> >> > > > i dont mind(at this point ) how it is created >> > > > how a photon is born how it is dying >> > > > i mind the bottom line experimental data >> > > > do you understand that the amount of energy it carries >> > > > is time dependent ?? >> >> > > See above. The energy of that particular individual photon is a >> > > fixed >> > > constant for all time, not just in the current emission. >> >> > > > 2 >> > > > do you understand that the amount of photon energy >> > > > that are active less then a a second >> > > > **is less** than that that is active during *one second ??* >> >> > > > even if it was done b many (actually a huge number of single >> > > > photons >> > > > that no one of them was active >> > > > one second but less than one second ?? >> >> > > You may be surprised that I actually find it hard to follow what you >> > > mean by the above as what you are writing seems so different from the >> > > way I see it. From my point of view the energy in a photon is an >> > > indivisible constant. (But different photons can have different >> > > energies, of course.) It does not really matter how long it is >> > > "active" (if you mean by active ... "how long it is in >> > > transmission"). If you mean by "active" ... "how long it is in >> > > emission" then that is from one instant to the next i.e. emitted >> > > within a Planck time interval. >> >> > > I just can't see how time affects the energy in a photon. It is a >> > > constant in emission and re-emission who knows how many times that >> > > energy in a particular photon can be re-emitted. >> >> > > > 3 >> > > > do you understand that if so >> > > > E=hf that is one second defined >> > > > because f is one second defined !!!-!!!!--- >> >> > > > ----> is not the definition niether of one single *real* photon >> > > > nor of many of them acting less then a second ???of >> > > > iow >> > > > ***there are real single photons** >> > > > (no matter how many of them but all of them >> > > > were active **less** than a second ) >> > > I paused after para 2. above and skipped para 3. as enough >> > > differences >> > > had already occurred. Save para 3. for another day as there is >> > > enough >> > > in 1. and 2, I believe. >> >> > > Ben >> >> > ---------------------- >> > if it is so hard for you >> > let us discus the **photoelectric** effect: >> >> > the photoelectic effect shows us two things >> > NOT JUST ONE THING >> >> > 1 >> > THAT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY >> > THAT PHOTONS CARRY IS >> > TIME DEPENDENT! >> > (because it is delivering its energy to the electrons!!) >> > AND ELECTRONS IN THAT EFFECT FLOW >> > IN A CONSTANT STREAM THAT IS LINEARLY >> > PROPORTIONAL TO ELAPSE OF TIME >> > it can be measured by an Ampermeter >> > while an ampere meter measures the number of electrons passing as >> > a function of time! >> > right ?? >> >> > 2 >> > that above flow of electrons in the photoelectric effect >> > can be done >> > (under the same exact start conditions >> > as in case 1 !!) ----> >> > IN LESS THAN A SECOND as well !! >> > (ie the same electron intensity flow >> > during less then a second as well )!!! >> > right?? >> >> > TIA >> > Y.Porat >> > ------------------- >> >> Porat, I cannot believe you are having difficulty with this, so I'm >> going to give you a simple example so you can see. >> >> Consider raindrops. Raindrops come in different sizes, some large, >> some small. The amount of water in a raindrop is related to its >> diameter. But once a raindrop is created, the amount of water in it is >> the same. >> >> Now, you can look at a pail of water in a rainstorm, and you can ask, >> "Is the amount of water in the bucket time dependent?" The answer is >> obviously yes. If you wait for two hours, the amount of water in the >> bucket will be twice as much as the amount of water in one hour. >> >> But if you then conclude from this statement that the amount of water >> in a raindrop is time-dependent, and that a raindrop that takes two >> hours to arrive is twice as large as a raindrop that takes one hour to >> arrive, then you've obviously made a big mistake. >> >> The reason there is twice as much water in the bucket after two hours >> is not because the raindrops took longer to get there and not because >> the raindrops are twice as big, but because twice as MANY raindrops >> that have landed in the bucket. >> >> And again, if you ask, is the size of the raindrop related to how long >> the raindrop took to get there, the answer is obviously NO. The amount >> of water in the raindrop is related to the diameter of the raindrop, >> not how long it took to get there. >> >> And so there is no "smallest raindrop" that has anything to do with >> time. >> >> Now, if you take all of these sentences above and substitute "energy" >> for "water", and "photon" for "raindrop", then you should be able to >> make some sense of photons. >> >> PD > > -------------------- > as usual a very nice metaphor > but **nothing to do with experimental facts!!** yes it does. Even the experiment that you mentioned (exposing a detector to light for one second as opposed to two seconds .. there is twice the energy received. And the experimental evidence that shows the energy in a SINGLE PHOTON is E= hf > you still donr undersand the basic of physics That's your failing, not ours > 1 > nothing can be created/done in zero time !! > do yuou agree withthat? As I have said repeatedly .. photons are created within a single quantum of time (if time is quantised). It cannot be created over more than one instant > 2 > noting can be done in less than** Planck time** That is a theory > because less than that is > BEYOND OUT ABILITY TO DETECT > OR TO MEASURE !!! That doesn't mean nothing happens. > 3 > even the Plank time > IS TIME DEPENDENT No .. it is a constant amount of time. It doesn't varying depending on when you measure it > ddi you get it at last ??? > 5.38 exp -44 SECONDS > is time dependent do you see that?? Dependent on what .. it is a CONSTANT !!! > it is not zero time Noone says it is. > while youdaid > instantaneous it is hand waving > not even science > according to Paul Draper preachings !! > if you wee consistent with YOURSELF > > you shoUld say > plank time DURATION is a scientific claim > > if it was the opposite situation > and i would say > istananeous and you whold say > Planck time > you would consuer youself a scientist > amd me - a hand waiver!! > just try to be honest and forget Ego interests !! We always are .. you are not > 4 > you ignored or didnt understand the meaning of my simple > experiment !!! No .. YOU did not get your own experiment .. which PROVES you are wrong. > a > we are not dealing about how > photons are created or disapper!! > WE AR DEALING ONLY WITH THE ENERGY THEY CARRY (YOUR RQINEXAMPLE) Which is E = hf and is NOT time dependent > BUT IT IS MORE THAN JUST THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY AT TH END OF THE DAY > > IT IS HOW IT IS DONE ALL ALONG THAT TIME > DURATION What time duration is that? > my experinet zooms in any fraction of a second that that process > is going on > it is not only at the begining and the end > it is all along the time That's right > if i take you metaphor > i dont know only how thw whater is carried > as a geberal knowlwdge > i know it in much more detailed !! > i methaphorically take and look not only what happen in a big > bucket > i take very little buckets and flollow them each fraction of a > second > so i can see not only the gross amopunt of wahter > i can see even the single drops And that is what Planck did .. and got E = hf > and see that there are not no big drops and small drops i can see tha > there are only salldrops You have NOT DONE THAT. Planck (and others) have done the analysis and found the energy in a single 'drop' is E = hf .. it cannot be subdivided further > and i can see the smallest one ofthem > as i say (:-)with the power of a tiny bit of a thinking !! You're right .. you only use a tiny bit of thinking > i can 'see'that they come one after the other !! > i can see thqt non of them can be smaller than > some minimal quantity > > THE PLANCK TIME 'PRODUCT !!! What has planck time got to do with smallest photon energy? > iow > bever smaller than that > and even so those little drops of yours > come one after the other > and each one of them can fill only say 0.1 of my smallest bucket > (the Milican experiment ) remember ?? > because in my experinet > > my buckes are the ELECTRONS > (of the photoelectric cell )THAT ARE TIME DEPENDENT FILLED UP > AND THE COME OUT ONE BY ONE > IN A CONSTANT STREAM !! Because the photons (assuming monochromatic light) have all the same energy and there are more of them > non of those electrons can pop out unless > a specific amount of 'rain' was insered in it > and all of them can contain only that specific amount of > electricity !!! What? .. electrons contain electricity? > so how about it > if you consider that it took me > to digest your metaphor and respond > in time dependence (:-) This is wrong > of about 15 mimutes > including my crippled typing (:-) > anyway i am still not sure that i did my best > explanation of my thinking We understand your thinking .. it is wrong > thank you for your metaphor > (i guess that me or someone else can do it > by investing more than 15 minutes . > of typing and thinking > simultaneous thinking while typing ..... > > i guess you are not doing such an irresponsible thing (:-) .). > ATB > Y.Porat
From: Y.y.Porat on 25 Mar 2010 23:03
On Mar 25, 5:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ----------------------------------------- > > ------------------- here is again his quote: quote > 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. ----------------- every one could say it because it is a general abstract understanding for anything in this world but the one who attached it specifically to the smallest photon energy was Y.Porat you fucken crooks PD inertial Ben Artful all of you said and it is documented in this thread all of you said that the photon emission is done **instantly **without mentioning the plank time!! all of you claimed again and again that E-hf is the definition of the single photon energy!! it is not my definition to the smallest photon energy iow by saying that hf that is one second dependent you **contradicted yourself** with your later claim that anyone before me related the smallest time needed for creation of the smallest photon energy emission!! so Oh what a grief of a bundle of retarded crooks even until now you imbeciles claim that the smallest single photon is hf (:-) (:-) Artful said at the beginning of this thread that the definition of the single photon energy is E= n h f it is documented !! GOT IT FUCKER CROOKS PD INERTIAL ARTFUL BEN 66 and added that this n is INTEGERS so it has nothing to do with Plack time!! f is one second defined GOT IT CROCKS it was me y.porat that was leading all the next development all the rest is a poor attempt of nasty pigs to steal it from me but heir trouble is that all of that is DOCUMENTED AL ALONG THIS THREAD AND YOU CANT UNDERESTIMATE THE INTELLIGENCE OF MORE THAN 1000 READERS HERE counting on that no one will bother to follow that was exactly the Josef Goebbels tactics !! but not lasting forever all those post here even in order to be a good pig lair one needs a bit of intelligence !! but youcant cheat every body fo rever even if you are an ORGINIZED GANG!!! ---------------- the imbecile crooks PD Artful Inertial do not realize even now that they say two contradicting things and even that poor ;logic of them was done under my presser of my long ssytematic analysis that leaded logically to that plank time IN CONTEXT OF THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY no one of those parasitic crocks did it all the way as i did it above without contradicting myself as they do even this moment the inbecile gangsters claim that E=hf is the definition of the single smallest photon energy !! see the title of my thread !! it is talking about the smallest photon energy and all of them jumped up like monkeys to refute me by their E=hf that they support even to this very moment !!! while E=hf has nothing to do with Planck time !!! 9that they try no to steal it from me while the above documentation is turning them to a gang of crooks ---------- OH WHAT A GRIEF OF of shameless gangsters Y.Porat ---------------- ------------------ |