Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 05:51 On Mar 26, 10:07 am, "In hem 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 !!! > > 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'. ================= AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO RECORD !! (:-) ----------------------------------------------> > quote from Inertial = artful = Ben = PD 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 .. --------------------------------------- all of them say : 'not second dependent' ... signed by all the above people ..!!! Thank you !!! recorded and signed by Inertial = Artful =Ben= PD 25 -3--2010 ok ?? ----------------------------- now can anyone of the 2000 silent majority readers explain to those idiots why they are idiot that canot be even thieves ?? TIA Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 06:05 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d084aba6-7f4e-48de-beec-a9e051585c7d(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 10:07 am, "In hem 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 !!! >> >> 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'. > > ================= > AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO RECORD !! (:-) It already has been .. time after time > ----------------------------------------------> > > quote from Inertial = artful = Ben = PD > E = h f > is not one second dependent !!! That's right. It what I've been telling you for weeks. E is the energy of a single photon .. a fixed amount .. it is *not* the energy per second. >> 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 .. > --------------------------------------- > all of them say : I say > 'not second dependent' ... Yeup. Its numerical value is dependent on the system of units we use, but there is not time duration value upon which that formula is dependent. There is no time value in it. > signed by all the above people ..!!! > Thank you !!! By me > recorded and signed by Inertial = Artful =Ben= > PD Only me .. I can't speak for Ben or PD, but I'm sure they'd agree. Experimental evidence certainly does. > 25 -3--2010 > ok ?? > ----------------------------- > now can anyone of the 2000 silent majority readers explain to those > idiots > why they are idiot that canot be even thieves ?? I don't want to be a thief. I wouldn't want to be like you. Now .. are you going to respond to my little quiz in the other thread entitled "Will simple questions defeat Porat .. lets see if they do.". I always answer your questions.
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 06:34 On Mar 26, 12:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d084aba6-7f4e-48de-beec-a9e051585c7d(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 26, 10:07 am, "In hem 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 !!! > > >> 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'. > > > ================= > > AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO RECORD !! (:-) > > It already has been .. time after time > > > ----------------------------------------------> > > > quote from Inertial = artful = Ben = PD > > E = h f > > is not one second dependent !!! > > That's right. It what I've been telling you for weeks. E is the energy of > a single photon .. a fixed amount .. it is *not* the energy per second. > > >> 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 .. > > --------------------------------------- > > all of them say : > > I say > > > 'not second dependent' ... > > Yeup. Its numerical value is dependent on the system of units we use, but > there is not time duration value upon which that formula is dependent. > There is no time value in it. > > > signed by all the above people ..!!! > > Thank you !!! > > By me > > > recorded and signed by Inertial = Artful =Ben= > > PD > > Only me .. I can't speak for Ben or PD, but I'm sure they'd agree. > Experimental evidence certainly does. > > > 25 -3--2010 > > ok ?? > > ----------------------------- > > now can anyone of the 2000 silent majority readers explain to those > > idiots > > why they are idiot that canot be even thieves ?? > > I don't want to be a thief. I wouldn't want to be like you. > > Now .. are you going to respond to my little quiz in the other thread > entitled "Will simple questions defeat Porat .. lets see if they do.". I > always answer your questions. ------------------ nasty pig NO MORE MILKING OF ME GO MILK YOUR SPIRITUAL TEACHER JOSEF GOEBBELS now lets here other people from those hundreds of readers **that ddin speak until now**!! and explain htose nasty crooks why they are nasty crooks and parasites thieves TIA Y.Porat --------------------
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 06:45 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:725612ef-0df3-4448-a940-8fb051e75f5a(a)h18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 12:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d084aba6-7f4e-48de-beec-a9e051585c7d(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mar 26, 10:07 am, "In hem 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 !!! >> >> >> 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'. >> >> > ================= >> > AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO RECORD !! (:-) >> >> It already has been .. time after time >> >> > ----------------------------------------------> > >> > quote from Inertial = artful = Ben = PD >> > E = h f >> > is not one second dependent !!! >> >> That's right. It what I've been telling you for weeks. E is the energy >> of >> a single photon .. a fixed amount .. it is *not* the energy per second. >> >> >> 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 .. >> > --------------------------------------- >> > all of them say : >> >> I say >> >> > 'not second dependent' ... >> >> Yeup. Its numerical value is dependent on the system of units we use, >> but >> there is not time duration value upon which that formula is dependent. >> There is no time value in it. >> >> > signed by all the above people ..!!! >> > Thank you !!! >> >> By me >> >> > recorded and signed by Inertial = Artful =Ben= >> > PD >> >> Only me .. I can't speak for Ben or PD, but I'm sure they'd agree. >> Experimental evidence certainly does. >> >> > 25 -3--2010 >> > ok ?? >> > ----------------------------- >> > now can anyone of the 2000 silent majority readers explain to those >> > idiots >> > why they are idiot that canot be even thieves ?? >> >> I don't want to be a thief. I wouldn't want to be like you. >> >> Now .. are you going to respond to my little quiz in the other thread >> entitled "Will simple questions defeat Porat .. lets see if they do.". I >> always answer your questions. > > ------------------ > nasty pig That's you > NO MORE MILKING OF ME What milking? What a revolting thought. > GO MILK YOUR SPIRITUAL TEACHER > JOSEF GOEBBELS You mean your hero? No thanks. > now lets here other people from those > hundreds of readers > **that ddin speak until now**!! Why would they bother. > and explain htose nasty crooks why > they are nasty crooks and parasites thieves We aren't. You are. Now .. are you going to show a little backbone and scientific behavior, and respond to my little quiz in the other thread entitled "Will simple questions defeat Porat .. lets see if they do.". If not, I will simply declare that the questions HAVE defeated you and you are not honest or smart enough to answer them.
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 08:36
On Mar 26, 11:15 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c6114b9b-e073-4e62-bde1-9e8353c94dd5(a)j21g2000yqh.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 > >> > ----------------------------------------- > > > we are going to see whose grief it is going to be > > Yours > > > so > > Mr genius PD > > please tell us > > what is the definition of a single photon > > E = hf .. that's the energy of a single photon. > > Why do you need to hear the physics over and over if you don't believe it > > > 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 > > Liar. I never put a planck time in the formula for the energy of a photon > .. it is not a time dependent qunatity. > ------------------------- thank you!!! THAT IS AS WELL RECORDED !!! quote: > Liar. I never put a planck time in the formula for the energy of a photon > .. it is not a time dependent qunatity. end of quote .. so-- the energy emitted by photons acording to Inertial is not time dependent ...... (:-) 26 -3-2010 signed by Inertial Y.Porat ----------------------------- |