Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 08:51 On Mar 26, 3:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 I've given this to you before. Please refer to your notes. I see no point in repeating myself. > (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: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 09:19 On Mar 26, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 3:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > I've given this to you before. Please refer to your notes. I see no > point in repeating myself. > > > (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 > > ----------- ------------------- so your definition of a suingle photon eenrgy emission *was* and *is*even now E=hf and it is not time dependent!!! your claim was that it is instantaneous right ??? and you ddint mention any Planck time in that context right ?? TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 09:20 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7a0da38c-36fa-46b3-aced-a6d167a17e2e(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > 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 !!! Yes it is. Over and over > 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 .. I note you snipped the rest of it that said == I did say that photons are created and destroyed within a single quantum of time. That's where the planck time would come into it. I said that to you over and over .. then you STOLE the idea and claimed it was yours. == > so-- > the energy emitted by photons acording to Inertial > is not time dependent ...... > (:-) That's what we have all been telling you .. it has found experimentally that the energy in a photon is simply E = hf, and that formula is NOT time dependent. 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: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 09:26 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:289fb0c9-22f1-45c6-9d01-508699b9ccfd(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 26, 3:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> I've given this to you before. Please refer to your notes. I see no >> point in repeating myself. >> >> > (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 >> > ----------- > > ------------------- > so your definition of a suingle photon eenrgy emission *was* and > *is*even now > > E=hf I've said that to you over and over and over that that is the formula for the energy of a single photon > and it is not time dependent!!! That's right .. it doesn't matter how long a photon exists for etc .. the amount of energy if the same > your claim was that it is instantaneous > right ??? My claim is that photons are created (and destroyed) within a single quantum of time .. one instant it does not exist, then next it does .. hence 'instantly'. I have been telling you this for ages as well > and you ddint mention any Planck time in that context > right ?? It was implicit when I said that photons are created (and destroyed) within a single quantum of time. You STOLE that idea from my posts (and others who were explaining it to you) and now claim it as your own. That is dishonest. 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: PD on 26 Mar 2010 09:28
On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 3:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > I've given this to you before. Please refer to your notes. I see no > > point in repeating myself. > > > > (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 > > > ----------- > > ------------------- > so your definition of a suingle photon eenrgy emission *was* and > *is*even now I did not say that. I've already given you my definition of a photon. You can look it up. I won't repeat it. > > E=hf > and it is not time dependent!!! > your claim was that it is instantaneous > right ??? > and you ddint mention any Planck time in that context > right ?? > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------- |