Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 10:29 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:61c0bf1f-966e-4221-8922-27d9ff4d3c77(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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 ?? It was very very clear. > did anyone saw a thread Have you even looked .. it is very clearly there Guess I'll have to post a link http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/417ba474165d00d3 > 'Will simple questions defeat Porat >> .. lets see if they do.". > while i said that pD was defeated He wasn't > i showed i in details Nope > 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 No .. you didn't show that at all > to prove that photon energy is emitted in;less than a second Which we were telling YOU !! > that expriemnt showes tha there is no > big single photon energy and small *single* photon energy No .. it doesn't show that at all > and that photon energy emission is** time dependent** No .. it doesn't show that at all. It only shows that the total energy of all the photons emitted over a period of time is time dependent. Which is what we have been telling *you*. > whil e the imbecile inertial does not understand it to this very > moment I understand it .. that's why I know what you say is nonsense > etc etc > so i substantiated it Nope > and not jus t played crocked childish games That's ALL you do > as the Psychopth Inertial !! is doing just now > not all the readers here are idiots like Inertial > the anonymous leach and crook Not all as as intelligent as me. > 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 ) I've posted that in another reply .. the first time that I could find in particular where I mentioned photon emission taking place within the smallest quantum of time.
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 11:35 On Mar 26, 4:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. ---------------------- nasty pig! lier first of all it wa sBen that dragged you there it was not your initiative 2 here is your quote : ------------------------- Yeup > This argument assumes that quanta exist (which I am not denying). :):) And, of course, instantaneous (in terms of quantised time) within the smallest possible qunata of time .. nothing can happen faster than that. end of quote you spoke there about AQUANTA OF TIME a mind you quanta is*** many times*** quantum is a specific time a it was Ben who draged you to that direction it was nor your initiative !! b there is nothing there about the PLANCK TIME !! and not in contesxt of photon** ENERY EMISSION!** you said quanta of time not a specific time as 5.38 exp-44 seconds !! nothing of it there!! you dealth with many time durations WHILE IDEAL WITH A QUANTUM OF TIME just one !! for the smallest while the single photon the smallest one is defined by Plank time as the time needed to emit one Plank length of (i dont remeber jsut now one legth (wavelenght ??of photon or not ?? anyway you ddint speak spok about one plank length you spoke about many (quanta) of **time ** ie tme attached to something specific nothing attached to that time!! you didnt say** a word* about **Plank time** ddint mentioned it at all !! while i dealed with **a single** photon* **energy emission** NOT MANY OF THEM (quanta ) as time dependent !! your udertanding until this moment is that photon enrgy emission is not time dependent (and that is why i recorded and documenyed it today !!) you say until this moment that E = HF IS THE DEFONITIN OF A SINGLE PHOTON AND NOT TIME DEPENDED!!! IF N OT TIEM DEPENDED WHY MULTIPLY IT BY ANY TIME ??!! you still dont understand how much you dont understand !! WHILE I SAID THAT minimal phton energy is IS hf **times** Plank time you did nothing like that !! so what you say has nothing to do with what i say !! and i added the exact figure 5.38 exp -44 seconds and added explanations why i suggest rather that Plank time a because it **stems out* of the Plank constant !!! -------------------- so nothing in common between us so you can as far as i concerned keep your definition of a single photon for yourself !! and i have mine and there is noting in common between us iow you dont even uderstand to this moment what you tried to steal from me Y.Porat -------------------------
From: ben6993 on 26 Mar 2010 11:42 On Mar 26, 1:29 pm, "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 > > ---------------------- > 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 > ------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Enough. Submit your new formula to a Physics Journal. (Have you written it up formally yet?) If they won't print it send it straight to the Nobel Committee. Don't hold your breath waiting.
From: Y.Porat on 26 Mar 2010 13:24 On Mar 26, 5:42 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 1:29 pm, "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 > > > ---------------------- > > 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 > > ------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Enough. > > Submit your new formula to a Physics Journal. > (Have you written it up formally yet?) > If they won't print it send it straight to the Nobel Committee. > Don't hold your breath waiting. -------------------- easy easy i am not in a hurry !! to tell you the truth t what i did here so long and so persistent was to be sure that n one can refute me .... and that is really unprecedented !!! 2 indeed i have an intention to publish it in some paper though i think that this NG is good enough for publicity in our days may be even better than a paper anyway you cannot say that it is or was boring ... there are now many hundreds of readers of it yet i wonder why so many of them keep quite ATB Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 27 Mar 2010 06:46
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ccba91a-d801-418e-9d4d-2eee51241da6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 4:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > > ---------------------- > nasty pig! Don't you like being shown to be wrong. > lier No lies at all > first of all it wa sBen that dragged you there > it was not your initiative Wrong > 2 > here is your quote : > ------------------------- > Yeup > >> This argument assumes that quanta exist (which I am not denying). > > :):) And, of course, instantaneous (in terms of quantised time) > within the smallest possible qunata of time .. nothing can happen > faster than that. > end of quote That's the same quote I gave. > you spoke there about AQUANTA OF TIME Yes I did > a mind you quanta is*** many times*** No. My apologies for saying 'quanta' instead of 'quantum' in that PARTICULAR quote. > quantum is a specific time Yes it is .. and I said MULTIPLE time that photons are created within a quantum of time > a > it was Ben who draged you to that direction > it was nor your initiative !! Doesn't REALLY matter. I was still the first in the thread (AFIAK) to mention light being created within a quantum of time. And I continued to tell you that over and over. Then you suddenly get come up with an 'innovation' that photons are created in a quantum of time. > b > there is nothing there about the > PLANCK TIME !! How long do you think a quantum of time is? > and not in contesxt of photon** ENERY EMISSION!** It was exactly in that context > you said quanta of time Which is a planck time > not a specific time as > 5.38 exp-44 seconds !! > nothing of it there!! > you dealth with many time durations > WHILE IDEAL WITH A QUANTUM OF TIME > just one !! Which is EXACTLY what I said .. over and over. You are a THIEF and a LIAAR > for the smallest > while the single photon the smallest one > is defined by Plank time as the time needed > to emit one Plank length of (i dont remeber jsut now > one legth (wavelenght ??of photon or not ?? > anyway > you ddint speak spok about one plank length Neither did you until then > you spoke about many (quanta) of > **time ** No .. I spoke of a single quantum .. MANY TIMES. > ie tme attached to something specific > nothing attached to that time!! > you didnt say** a word* about > **Plank time** That is the length of a quantum of time. You STOLE the idea I posted [snip more NONSENSE from the LIAR and THIEF Porat > WHILE I SAID THAT > minimal phton energy is > IS > > hf **times** Plank time Which is complete nonsense .. it deosn't even make sense wrt dimensional anlysis. you are WRONG > you did nothing like that !! Because THAT is NONSENSE > so what you say has nothing to do with what i say !! Thanks god for that. Except you STOLE the idea of photons being created in a single quantum of time FROM MY POSTS > and i added the exact figure 5.38 exp -44 seconds Doesn't make any difference. And that EXACT figure is not planck time > and added explanations why i suggest rather > that Plank time > a because it **stems out* of the Plank constant !!! And its all nonsense > -------------------- > so nothing in common between us > so you can as far as i concerned > keep your definition of a single photon > for yourself !! Happy to. But you still STOLE the idea of using a single quantum of time from MY POSTS. > and i have mine > and there is noting in common between us > iow > you dont even uderstand to this moment > what you tried to steal from me LIAR .. *you* stole from *me*. You are a blatant THIEF |