Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 27 Mar 2010 06:48 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:db15820a-efed-4a52-999b-1089d2361da5(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > 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 .... I already have > and that is really unprecedented !!! You use of the duration of a qunantum of time for photon creation you STOLE from my posts. So that part of it is definitely precedented. the newsgruop history proves it. > 2 > indeed i have an intention to publish it > in some paper > though i think that this NG is good enough > for publicity Because noone would publish your nonsense > in our days may be even better than a paper > anyway > you cannot say that it is or was boring ... Really .. the only thing stopping you from being boring is yiour lies > there are now many hundreds of readers of it > yet i wonder why so many of them > keep quite Most of them
From: Inertial on 27 Mar 2010 07:38 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ed95704e-6534-4bae-a296-634e5e8325d8(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 4:29 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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/417ba474... >> >> > '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. > > ----------------- > you dint say the smallest quantum time > fucken lier From Feb 20 http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics/msg/63a1b4b193baea20?dmode=source == It MUST be instantaneous (or at least within the shortest quantum of time, if time is quantized) because a photon is indivisible. == There are many other occasions where I said the photons are created within the smallest quantum of time (if time is quantized). Sometimes I used the wrong word (quanta instead of quantum), but the meaning was clear. *That* is where you got 'your' idea of photon creation happening in planck time (the shortest quantum of time)
From: Y.Porat on 27 Mar 2010 07:42 On Mar 27, 12:52 pm, "Ine > > grandmother as well > > and it will be the same !!! > > No .. it would them be a different number, and no longer be the energy of a > single photon > > > even in order to be a thief parasite gangster > > one must have a minimal amount of intelligence!! > > You obviously had (barely) enough to STEAL from me > > > 5 > > ... > > read more » ---------------------------- ok we geared you we had more than enough of you (you are sweating now and have good reason for it!) now let ***other*** people to explain you blockhead ---- WHY h f IS TIME DEPENDENT (please by pass the psychopath crook ) Y.P -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 27 Mar 2010 13:38 > > even in order to be a thief parasite gangster > > > one must have a minimal amount of intelligence!! > > > You obviously had (barely) enough to STEAL from > > WHY h f IS TIME DEPENDENT > (please by pass the psychopath crook ) > Y.P > ------------------- can anyone of my 2000 readers explain to the retarded psychopath Inertial = Artful=anonymous why hf *is * time dependent ??!! TIA Y.Porat -------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 27 Mar 2010 20:31
On Mar 27, 1:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ed95704e-6534-4bae-a296-634e5e8325d8(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 26, 4:29 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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/417ba474.... > > >> > '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. > > > ----------------- > > you dint say the smallest quantum time > > fucken lier > > From Feb 20 > > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics/msg/63a1b4b193baea20?dm... > == > It MUST be instantaneous (or at least within the > shortest quantum of time, if time is quantized) because a photon is > indivisible. > == > > There are many other occasions where I said the photons are created within > the smallest quantum of time (if time is quantized). Sometimes I used the > wrong word (quanta instead of quantum), but the meaning was clear. *That* > is where you got 'your' idea of photon creation happening in planck time > (the shortest quantum of time) ------------------------------- how do you use the Plank time time to define the smallest single photon * energy* ?? just show us your complete formula ..... TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- ---------------------------- |