Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 03:07 On Mar 26, 5:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3973b912-7efb-4840-b6dc-156c7d6cded9(a)b33g2000yqc.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 xperimentally > > > has nothing to do with > > Planck time !!! > > It shouldn't do as the enrgy of a phton is NOT time dependent. > > > 9that they try no to steal it from me > > No .. you CLEARLY stole the idea from me, when I said photons are created in > the smallest qunaum of time. > > > while the above documentation is turning them to a gang of crooks > > No .. it is proving you wrong > > > ---------- > > OH WHAT A GRIEF OF > > of shameless gangsters > > You are a gang of one. ===============================--------------------- lucky me that the imbecile crook Inertial =Artful = Ben =PD still claim that E=h f is not one second dependent !!! (:-) now you fucked yourself and your gang not only as thieve but as idiots who does not understand THAT his right hand is doing SOMETHING while his left hand is doing **something else CONTRADICTORY ! and i guess that the imbecile does not know what i am talking even now !! IT IS A PROVE THAT NOT ONLY ALL THOSE GANGSTERS ARE THIEVES THEY ARE FUCKEN MONKEY IMBECILES !! EVEN TO BE A LITTLE NASTY THIEF ONE MUST HAVE A MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE !!! (:-) Y.Porat --------------------
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 04:07 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:86696696-ddbc-447d-b830-7e44d7cd6771(a)e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 5:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3973b912-7efb-4840-b6dc-156c7d6cded9(a)b33g2000yqc.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 xperimentally >> >> > has nothing to do with >> > Planck time !!! >> >> It shouldn't do as the enrgy of a phton is NOT time dependent. >> >> > 9that they try no to steal it from me >> >> No .. you CLEARLY stole the idea from me, when I said photons are created >> in >> the smallest qunaum of time. >> >> > while the above documentation is turning them to a gang of crooks >> >> No .. it is proving you wrong >> >> > ---------- >> > OH WHAT A GRIEF OF >> > of shameless gangsters >> >> You are a gang of one. > > ===============================--------------------- > lucky me that the imbecile crook Inertial =Artful = Ben =PD Do you honestly believe (if you do anything honestly) that they are all the one person? > still claim that > E=h f > is not one second dependent !!! Of course it isn't. The numerical *values* of E and h and f depend on the system of units we use. But the formula itself is not 'second dependent'. Nor is the value of E = hf a time dependent value .. there is *no time variable* in there, so it does not depend on time. E = hf has the same value regardless of time. > (:-) > now you fucked yourself and your gang Not at all. You simply don't understand physics. > not only as thieve but as idiots > who does not understand > THAT his right hand is doing SOMETHING > while his left hand is doing **something else > CONTRADICTORY ! Nothing contradictory in anything that I say. You simply don't understand physics. > and i guess that the imbecile does not know > what i am talking even now !! > IT IS A PROVE THAT NOT ONLY ALL THOSE GANGSTERS ARE THIEVES > THEY ARE FUCKEN MONKEY IMBECILES !! > EVEN TO BE A LITTLE NASTY THIEF > ONE MUST HAVE A MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE !!! (:-) Good to see that you qualify for being a little nasty thief. I guess you're not going to answer me challenges then .. and are going to admit defeat?
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 04:37 On Mar 26, 10:07 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:86696696-ddbc-447d-b830-7e44d7cd6771(a)e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 26, 5:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:3973b912-7efb-4840-b6dc-156c7d6cded9(a)b33g2000yqc.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 xperimentally > > >> > has nothing to do with > >> > Planck time !!! > > >> It shouldn't do as the enrgy of a phton is NOT time dependent. > > >> > 9that they try no to steal it from me > > >> No .. you CLEARLY stole the idea from me, when I said photons are created > >> in > >> the smallest qunaum of time. > > >> > while the above documentation is turning them to a gang of crooks > > >> No .. it is proving you wrong > > >> > ---------- > >> > OH WHAT A GRIEF OF > >> > of shameless gangsters > > >> You are a gang of one. > > > ===============================--------------------- > > lucky me that the imbecile crook Inertial =Artful = Ben =PD > > Do you honestly believe (if you do anything honestly) that they are all the > one person? > > > still claim that > > E=h f > > is not one second dependent !!! > > Of course it isn't. The numerical *values* of E and h and f depend on the > system of units we use. But the formula itself is not 'second dependent'. > Nor is the value of E = hf a time dependent value .. there is *no time > variable* in there, so it does not depend on time. E = hf has the same value > regardless of time. > > > (:-) > > now you fucked yourself and your gang > > Not at all. You simply don't understand physics. > > > not only as thieve but as idiots > > who does not understand > > THAT his right hand is doing SOMETHING > > while his left hand is doing **something else > > CONTRADICTORY ! > > Nothing contradictory in anything that I say. You simply don't understand > physics. > > > and i guess that the imbecile does not know > > what i am talking even now !! > > IT IS A PROVE THAT NOT ONLY ALL THOSE GANGSTERS ARE THIEVES > > THEY ARE FUCKEN MONKEY IMBECILES !! > > EVEN TO BE A LITTLE NASTY THIEF > > ONE MUST HAVE A MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE !!! (:-) > > Good to see that you qualify for being a little nasty thief. > > I guess you're not going to answer me challenges then .. and are going to > admit defeat? ---------------- (:-) i am waiting forPD to tell us what is the definition of the single photon (even to be a sientific thief one must have a minimal intelligence (:-) in the fish market or gangster market you can be a thief without intelligence !!!..... Y.Porat --------------------- Y.P -----------
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 04:51 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9cba2c55-2aad-4d46-8110-f41194686f51(a)35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 10:07 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:86696696-ddbc-447d-b830-7e44d7cd6771(a)e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mar 26, 5:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:3973b912-7efb-4840-b6dc-156c7d6cded9(a)b33g2000yqc.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 xperimentally >> >> >> > has nothing to do with >> >> > Planck time !!! >> >> >> It shouldn't do as the enrgy of a phton is NOT time dependent. >> >> >> > 9that they try no to steal it from me >> >> >> No .. you CLEARLY stole the idea from me, when I said photons are >> >> created >> >> in >> >> the smallest qunaum of time. >> >> >> > while the above documentation is turning them to a gang of crooks >> >> >> No .. it is proving you wrong >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> > OH WHAT A GRIEF OF >> >> > of shameless gangsters >> >> >> You are a gang of one. >> >> > ===============================--------------------- >> > lucky me that the imbecile crook Inertial =Artful = Ben =PD >> >> Do you honestly believe (if you do anything honestly) that they are all >> the >> one person? >> >> > still claim that >> > E=h f >> > is not one second dependent !!! >> >> Of course it isn't. The numerical *values* of E and h and f depend on >> the >> system of units we use. But the formula itself is not 'second >> dependent'. >> Nor is the value of E = hf a time dependent value .. there is *no time >> variable* in there, so it does not depend on time. E = hf has the same >> value >> regardless of time. >> >> > (:-) >> > now you fucked yourself and your gang >> >> Not at all. You simply don't understand physics. >> >> > not only as thieve but as idiots >> > who does not understand >> > THAT his right hand is doing SOMETHING >> > while his left hand is doing **something else >> > CONTRADICTORY ! >> >> Nothing contradictory in anything that I say. You simply don't >> understand >> physics. >> >> > and i guess that the imbecile does not know >> > what i am talking even now !! >> > IT IS A PROVE THAT NOT ONLY ALL THOSE GANGSTERS ARE THIEVES >> > THEY ARE FUCKEN MONKEY IMBECILES !! >> > EVEN TO BE A LITTLE NASTY THIEF >> > ONE MUST HAVE A MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE !!! (:-) >> >> Good to see that you qualify for being a little nasty thief. >> >> I guess you're not going to answer me challenges then .. and are going to >> admit defeat? > > ---------------- > (:-) > i am waiting forPD to tell us > what is the definition of the single photon He's told you before. Why do you think he will change his mind about E = hf ?? > (even to be a sientific thief one must have a minimal intelligence > (:-) You seem to manage to scrape thru ok > in the fish market or gangster market > you can be a thief without intelligence !!!..... I've never sold fish, nor been a gangster .. so I will have to listen to your experience in those areas. I'm sure you were very successful. I guess you're not going to answer my challenges then .. and are going to admit defeat?
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 04:56
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 > > ----------------------------------------- we are going to see whose grief it is going to be so Mr genius PD please tell us what is the definition of a single photon i would like to make it clear again ie after all our long detailed discussions here !! (i hope you are not going to tell us that you are a partner to Inertial = artful with that Plank time defition in it BTW th e prize comity for copyrights has a serious problem ie to detect and locate the genius double heaed Artful ANONYMOUS in order to decorate him withthat prize one possibility will be to bestow it just to Mr ANONYMOUS .... or half to Inerial anonymous and another half to anonymous Artful ,,, and the Brides Made will be Paul Draper ... (:-) (:-) 2 this post is only addressed to PD he has a good sense of humor ... anyway the answer to the definition of photon energy emission is expected to be serious after all we are expected to do seroius advance as well !! and not just waist human resources TIA Y.Porat ------------------- |