Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 00:23 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 --------------------- Mr Ben = Artful see my thread 'for the first time an inner contradiction is found in q m' it is from 11 Feb (if i am not mistaken )..... even to be a thief one must have some minimal intelligence ..... 2 do you stil say that E=hf is the definition of a single photon?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------- (:-) Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 00:29 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 > > ----------------------------------------- Mr PD do you still say that the definition of a single photon energy is E=hf ??? please answer and dont hide yourself as a coward behind the back of the other pigs here TIA Y.Porat ---------------------
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 00:50 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1dbd31b1-ff9b-41a6-aeb9-28b1509673e5(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > 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 > > --------------------- > Mr Ben = Artful He isn't > see my thread > 'for the first time an inner contradiction is found in q m' That was nonsense too > it is from > 11 Feb (if i am not mistaken )..... > even to be a thief one must have some minimal intelligence ..... You seem to manage to be one without even that level of intelligence. > 2 > do you stil say that > E=hf is the definition of a single photon?? It is the energy of a single photon of EMR of frequency f. Experiment has PROVEN that to be the case. What is YOUR formula for the energy of a single photon of EMR of frequency f? How about you answer the questions I have posed in my thread "Will simple questions defeat Porat .. lets see if they do." .. or (by not doing so) admit defeat.
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 00:51 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e21d94d0-f1e0-40b5-bcb6-240b7b5adb5a(a)l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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 >> > ----------------------------------------- > > Mr PD > do you still say that the definition of a single photon energy is > E=hf ??? Of course it is .. why would he (or anyone reasonable) deny something so conclusively shown experimentally? > please answer and dont hide > yourself as a coward behind the back of the other pigs here
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 02:47
On Mar 25, 2:36 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:706d2342-1dfd-48b6-918f-fa914d187038(a)n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > <Re-posted message after further snipping for brevity!> > > > On Mar 25, 9:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip for brevity> > > >> 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 !!.... > > > Yes, I agree that we cannot use the contraction formula itself on a > > photon. > > You can't use it for anything at all since it is an expansion formula. > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than unity, anything divided by something less > than 1 becomes greater, e.g. 2 = 1/(0.5). > How many idiots make five? --------------------- btw do you know that the fact that Gamma factor does not apply to the photon IS A PROVE THAT THE PHOTON **HAS MASS** !! (:-) ATB Y.Porat ------------------- |