Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 28 Mar 2010 04:11 On Mar 28, 2:31 am, "Y.Po > > > >> 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 > > > 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 ------------------------------------ and now we have another prve that Inertial is a fucken psychopath lier he claims tha the was the first one to mention the word 'quantum' it is in the thread that was** initiated and leaded** by me y.p that is called A COPYRIGHT QUESTION' from 20 Feb 2010 but actually it was me that leaded it to look for the smallest photon energy here is the quote it was first said by Ben 699 not by Inertial : quote I think that you are just trying to smooth the creation instant and change it from a discontinuous event into a continuous one. If you imagine that smoothing taking place within that first quantum of time in our framework. Ie its transition from creation to moving at speed c, then I can't really argue against that (physicists might?) as no one really knows what happens within one quantum of time or space. But after creation when Maxwell's equation apply, it must be moving at speed c for the whole time we know it is travelling in our framework. Which is why it is said to be an instantaneous creation. > 2 > we know that E=hf is describing well the amount of energy in big > (actually huge number of real units ) quantities > many many photons carry > yet a gain we dont know what is that > 'many many' quantitatively E=hf applies to a single photon. end of quote he BEN said it before the monkey thief Inertial he said it **just one post before Artful ** !! anyone can see it in MY thread 'A copyright question '' from 20 Feb!! ------------- yet still all of the insisted alllalong the many threads (THAT I Y P INITIATED ) --- (and even this very moment that the definition for the single photon is hf !!! so if Ben is as well Artful !! then it was Artful that said it first if no it is Ben and Artful is a Nazi Goebbels lier btw ( i will keep looking in those thread if it was me that said it i some wayeven before Ben i ddint invest too much to find it out anyway it was me who first time defined the single smallest photon ENERGY!! as E =hf n WHILE 0 > n ,,,,,,1.00000 (Plank time is included in that defintion in any case it is obvious that it was me who leaded the whole development !! and at he bottom lne i did it right while the monkyInjertial just jumped as a monkey and did it wrong !!without understanding what he tried to steal !! until this moment he does not understand and it is documented ------------------ 2 Mr Inertial i am still waiting to your formula of smallest photon **energy** using ''''you'' Plank time !!! ps please answer my questions 1 and 2 dont try to evade any of them because it will be too obvious that you are running away TIA Y.Porat --------------------
From: Y.Porat on 28 Mar 2010 05:39 On Mar 28, 10:11 am, > it is in the thread that was** initiated and leaded** by me y.p > that is called > A COPYRIGHT QUESTION' > from 20 Feb 2010 > but actually it was me that leaded it to look for the smallest photon > energy > here is the quote > it was first said by Ben 699 > not by Inertial : > > quote > I think that you are just trying to smooth the creation instant and > change it from a discontinuous event into a continuous one. If you > imagine that smoothing taking place within that first quantum of time > in our framework. Ie its transition from creation to moving at speed > c, then I can't really argue against that (physicists might?) as no > one really knows what happens within one quantum of time or space. But > after creation when Maxwell's equation apply, it must be moving at > speed c for the whole time we know it is travelling in our framework. > Which is why it is said to be an instantaneous creation. > > > 2 > > we know that E=hf is describing well the amount of energy in big > > (actually huge number of real units ) quantities > > many many photons carry > > yet a gain we dont know what is that > > 'many many' quantitatively > > E=hf applies to a single photon. > end of quote > he BEN said it before the monkey thief Inertial > he said it **just one post before Artful ** !! > > anyone can see it in MY thread > 'A copyright question '' > from 20 Feb!! > ------------- > > yet still all of the insisted alllalong the many > threads > (THAT I Y P INITIATED ) --- > (and even this very moment > > that the definition for the single photon is > > hf !!! > so if Ben is as well Artful !! > then it was Artful that said it first > if no > it is Ben > and Artful is a Nazi Goebbels lier > btw > ( i will keep looking in those thread if it was me that said it i > some wayeven before Ben > i ddint invest too much to find it out > anyway > it was me who first time defined the single smallest > photon ENERGY!! > as > E =hf n > WHILE > 0 > n ,,,,,,1.00000 > (Plank time is included in that defintion > in any case it is obvious that it was me > who leaded the whole development !! > and at he bottom lne i did it right > while the monkyInjertial > just jumped as a monkey > and did it wrong !!without understanding what he tried to > steal !! > until this moment he does not understand > and it is documented > ------------------ > > 2 > Mr Inertial > i am still waiting to your formula > of smallest photon **energy** > using ''''you'' Plank time !!! > ps > please answer my questions > 1 > and 2 > dont try to evade any of them > because it will be too obvious > that you are running away > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------- now what happened to you Inertial?? in past you was very quick to answer!! or may be you and your gangster team are working how on another forgery project !!!??? 2000 readers are waiting to see how do you use your Plank time in order to get the smallest photon energy !!! TIA Y.Porat -------------------------
From: Inertial on 28 Mar 2010 19:37 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e96fec33-67b3-411c-879f-f646fd8dbd8f(a)e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > 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 What makes you think they are YOUR readers? Or that even one of them agrees with your nonsense? > explain to the retarded psychopath Inertial = Artful=anonymous > > why > hf *is * time dependent ??!! No .. because it isn't
From: Inertial on 28 Mar 2010 19:39 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:de0caf87-3dbf-4dab-b9ee-4282e48524f9(a)n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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* ?? The time to create a photon has nothing to do with its energy .. which is fixed > just show us your complete formula ..... E = hf Notice that *I* am not afraid to answer quetsion. You still refused to answer mine, so are clearly happy to admit defeat
From: Inertial on 28 Mar 2010 19:45
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9ca443c1-2b7e-4774-ac62-7879b00fc8f5(a)u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 28, 2:31 am, "Y.Po > > > >> 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 >> >> > 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 > ------------------------------------ > and now we have another prve that > Inertial is a fucken psychopath lier Nope > he claims tha the was the first one > to mention the word 'quantum' Lots of people mention quantum and quanta > it is in the thread that was** initiated and leaded** by me y.p > that is called > A COPYRIGHT QUESTION' > from 20 Feb 2010 > but actually it was me that leaded it to look for the smallest photon > energy Which was all nonsense > here is the quote > it was first said by Ben 699 > not by Inertial : > > quote > I think that you are just trying to smooth the creation instant and > change it from a discontinuous event into a continuous one. If you > imagine that smoothing taking place within that first quantum of time > in our framework. Ie its transition from creation to moving at speed > c, then I can't really argue against that (physicists might?) as no > one really knows what happens within one quantum of time or space. But > after creation when Maxwell's equation apply, it must be moving at > speed c for the whole time we know it is travelling in our framework. > Which is why it is said to be an instantaneous creation. What date was that one. As I first claimed here, it was I or others) that mwentioned it .. and ALL were before you >> 2 >> we know that E=hf is describing well the amount of energy in big >> (actually huge number of real units ) quantities >> many many photons carry >> yet a gain we dont know what is that >> 'many many' quantitatively > > E=hf applies to a single photon. > end of quote > he BEN said it before the monkey thief Inertial > he said it **just one post before Artful ** !! Well .. there you go .. That's probably why when you first asked about who was first, I said it was me or others. The point is it was NOT you. And I was saying to you OVER and OVER before you. > anyone can see it in MY thread > 'A copyright question '' > from 20 Feb!! > ------------- > > yet still all of the insisted alllalong the many > threads > (THAT I Y P INITIATED ) --- > (and even this very moment > > that the definition for the single photon is > > hf !!! It is > so if Ben is as well Artful !! > then it was Artful that said it first > if no > it is Ben > and Artful is a Nazi Goebbels lier > btw > ( i will keep looking in those thread if it was me that said it i > some wayeven before Ben It wasn't > i ddint invest too much to find it out > anyway > it was me who first time defined the single smallest > photon ENERGY!! > as > E =hf n > WHILE > 0 > n ,,,,,,1.00000 Which is nonsense > (Plank time is included in that defintion No .. it isn't > in any case it is obvious that it was me > who leaded the whole development !! Nope. Planck any other actual physicists have lead it. This is all OLD STUFF > and at he bottom lne i did it right > while the monkyInjertial > just jumped as a monkey > and did it wrong !!without understanding what he tried to > steal !! > until this moment he does not understand > and it is documented Yes .. your LIES and NONSENSE are well documents > ------------------ > > 2 > Mr Inertial > i am still waiting to your formula > of smallest photon **energy** E = hf .. I've given you that formulas over and over. WHY DON'T YOU READ !!! > using ''''you'' Plank time !!! > ps > please answer my questions I always do > 1 > and 2 > dont try to evade any of them I don't > because it will be too obvious > that you are running away BAHAHAHA. You are the one who REFUSED to answer my questions to you and in doing so have admitted defeat |