Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 09:29 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 ---------------------- please quote the exact** link** in which it was said by Artful so we can see it with our own eyes not in your words or quote but by the original post and words in short please give us the original its timing its context etc so we can see you are punctual with your quote its context etc !! TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 09:48 On Mar 26, 3:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. ----------------- what is your question?? Y.P --------------
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 09:55 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:787748cf-9fd1-46f8-9568-f24324baf0bf(a)35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 3:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > > ----------------- > what is your question?? I told you: in the other thread entitled "Will simple questions defeat Porat ... lets see if they do.". It looks like just posting a question is enough to defeat you .. you can't find it.
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 10:16 On Mar 26, 3:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:787748cf-9fd1-46f8-9568-f24324baf0bf(a)35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 26, 3:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > > > ----------------- > > what is your question?? > > I told you: in the other thread entitled "Will simple questions defeat Porat > .. lets see if they do.". > > It looks like just posting a question is enough to defeat you .. you can't > find it. -------------------- ddi any one of the readers undestood what that imbecile crook psychopath is told me jsut now ?? did anyone saw a thread 'Will simple questions defeat Porat > .. lets see if they do.". while i said that pD was defeated i showed i in details ie wHat was his definition of a single photon HE SAID INSTANTANEOUSLY WITH NO DEFINITION OR PROVE ABOUT THAT INSTANTANEOUS ! ie jsur emothy hand wavings i showed that he ddint understand my experiment to prove that photon energy is emitted in;less than a second that expriemnt showes tha there is no big single photon energy and small *single* photon energy and that photon energy emission is** time dependent** whil e the imbecile inertial does not understand it to this very moment etc etc so i substantiated it and not jus t played crocked childish games as the Psychopth Inertial !! is doing just now not all the readers here are idiots like Inertial the anonymous leach and crook 2 Mr inertial just bring us the quote in which you first mentioned the PLANCK TIME **IN CONTEXT** OF SINGLE SMALLEST PHOTON ** ENERGY EMISSION *** (that was AND IS the issue at the title of my thread THAT ANY ONE CAN SEE ABOVE AT ITS BEGINNING ) TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------- later waht is his definition about smallest photon ENERGY EMISSION
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 10:24
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9e7e38cd-fd49-4da9-bece-51d92e223857(a)q21g2000yqm.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 > ---------------------- > please quote the exact** link** in which it was said by Artful > so we can see it with our own eyes > > not in your words or quote but by the original > post and words > in short please give us the original > its timing its context etc > so we can see you are punctual with your quote its context etc !! http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics/msg/6acc9be69ab0da65 Feb 22, 12:02 pm == :):) And, of course, instantaneous (in terms of quantised time) within the smallest possible qunata of time .. nothing can happen faster than that. == I'm not sure if there is an earlier mention of photons created in a smallest quantum of time .. but there were certainly more references after that one by me. |