Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 09:01 On Mar 23, 2:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b3262e37-a178-47a7-869a-3a2b26cc9872(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 23, 1:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:69baa3b5-5ac0-4703-99dc-315bb7e7a8f0(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 23, 1:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:825d5df4-dc7b-4e35-b649-a6e1e20c28d6(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Mar 23, 12:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:6c0d19bb-b079-4a62-be63-91cfb06037d6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups..com... > > >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > Here is mybetterdefinition about the range > >> >> >> >> > in which the real single photon energy emission should be > >> >> >> >> > found > >> >> >> >> > (in > >> >> >> >> > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > >> >> >> >> > E single photon = hf n > > >> >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf > > >> >> >> You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense > > >> >> >> >> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > >> >> >> >> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 > > >> >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1 > > >> >> >> >> > 2 > >> >> >> >> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for > >> >> >> >> > it > > >> >> >> There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0 > > >> >> >> >> > you need for it > > >> >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> >> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells > >> >> >> >> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated > >> >> >> >> > by photon electric cells ) > > >> >> >> >> > b > >> >> >> >> > a Led torch > >> >> >> >> > c > >> >> >> >> > the experiment must be in a background light > >> >> >> >> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!.. > >> >> >> >> > iow light wave that is long enough > >> >> >> >> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit ) > > >> >> >> >> > so > >> >> >> >> > 1 > >> >> >> >> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells > >> >> >> >> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!! > > >> >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! > >> >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second etc ) > > >> >> >> >> > 2 > >> >> >> >> > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you > >> >> >> >> > calculator > >> >> >> >> > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then > >> >> >> >> > *disappear* > >> >> >> >> > 3 > >> >> >> >> > what do you get there ?? > > >> >> >> >> > some hints: > >> >> >> >> > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the > >> >> >> >> > calculator activation ('life time' )-- > > >> >> >> >> > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION* > >> >> >> >> > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!** > > >> >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That > >> >> >> does > >> >> >> NOT > >> >> >> prove your > >> >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > >> >> >> >> > (in our case less than a second > >> >> >> >> > but more then zero time !!! > > >> >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That > >> >> >> does > >> >> >> NOT > >> >> >> prove your > >> >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > >> >> >> >> > Q E D !! > > >> >> >> There is no QED there > > >> >> >> >> > historic copyright ! > > >> >> >> Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense? > > >> >> >> >> > Yehiel Porat > >> >> >> >> > Mars 2010 > >> >> >> >> > TIA > >> >> >> >> > ------------------ > > >> >> >> >> and only now after all this long tedious > >> >> >> >> thred > >> >> >> >> i can bring my > >> >> >> >> bottom line 'side product ' (:-) > > >> >> >> There is none > > >> >> >> >> the sensational pick antic > >> >> >> >> side product innovation > >> >> >> >> punch line : > > >> >> >> >> since we found in this thread that the > >> >> >> >> smallest photon energy is : > > >> >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 Joules > >> >> >> >> inorder to find the > > >> >> >> No .. you found nothing of the sort > > >> >> >> >> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!! > >> >> >> >> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by > >> >> >> >> c^2 > >> >> >> >> 9 exp16!! > >> >> >> >> and we get > > >> >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16 > >> >> >> >> and we get the > >> >> >> >> smallest PHOTON MASS : > > >> >> >> Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest > >> >> >> photon > >> >> >> mass > >> >> >> (because photon mass is zero) > > >> >> >> >> ===================== > >> >> >> >> Smallest photon **mass** > >> >> >> >> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! > >> >> >> >> ===================== > > >> >> >> Nonsense .. even with === around it > > >> >> >> >> and mind you > >> >> >> >> there is jsut one kind of mass > >> >> >> >> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one > > >> >> >> Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length. > > >> >> >> That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a > >> >> >> relativistic > >> >> >> mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a > >> >> >> measurement > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> different things. > > >> >> >> Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both > >> >> >> lengths > > >> >> >> >> there is the MKS system > > >> >> >> >> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM > >> >> >> >> just the MKS > >> >> >> >> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !! > > >> >> >> noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> disputing as though they are. > > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- > >> >> >> >> indeed fantastically small mass > >> >> >> >> and only now you can start to understand why > >> >> >> >> people said that the photon mass is > >> >> >> >> practically zero!! > >> >> >> >> but now i say > >> >> >> >> practically is not necessarily theoretically !! > > >> >> >> Yes .. theoretically > > >> >> >> >> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely > >> >> >> >> important > > >> >> >> You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary > >> >> >> numbers > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. > >> >> >> That > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> just nonsense. > > >> >> >> >> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in > >> >> >> >> money saving uses !! > >> >> >> >> from now on( i think) > >> >> >> >> there is no use anymore to look for > >> >> >> >> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!! > >> >> >> >> because there is nothing like that > > >> >> >> >> old Catto said : > >> >> >> >> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! > >> >> >> >> so > > >> >> >> >> to save a lot of human resources and not least save > >> >> >> >> inexpensive > >> >> >> >> TIME !!! > >> >> >> >> for further advance . > > >> >> >> >> copyright Yehiel Porat > >> >> >> >> March 2010 > > >> >> >> More nonsense copyrighted > > >> >> >> >> TIA > >> >> >> >> Y.Porat > >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------- > > >> >> >> > Paul Draper was defeated > >> >> >> > and refuses to admit it !!! > > >> >> >> Never happened. > > >> >> >> > i was asking him two simple questions > >> >> >> > 1 > >> >> >> > is the Planck Time definition as > >> >> >> > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... > > >> >> >> No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around > >> >> >> 5.39x10^-44 > >> >> >> seconds. > >> >> >> Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is > >> >> >> dependent > >> >> >> on the units of measure. > > >> >> >> > (it is defined by seconds) > > >> >> >> No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds > >> >> >> (or > >> >> >> any > >> >> >> other unit) > > >> >> >> > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > >> >> >> That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. > >> >> >> What > >> >> >> do > >> >> >> you mean by a time dependent time duration? > > >> >> >> > 2 > >> >> >> > who was the first one to shggest > >> >> >> > the Planck time > >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR > >> >> >> > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY > >> >> >> > TO BE EMITTED ?? > > >> >> >> Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the > >> >> >> smallest > >> >> >> quanta of > >> >> >> time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense. > > >> >> >> But I'm sure others have said that before you. > > >> >> >> > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) > > >> >> >> He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find > >> >> >> out. > >> >> >> That > >> >> >> doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he > >> >> >> replies > >> >> >> "I > >> >> >> don't know, you have defeated me" > > >> >> >> > BTW > >> >> >> > can anyone reveal > >> >> >> > who is the nasty pig anonymous > >> >> >> > that is less than one year on this ng !!!. > >> >> >> > and is calling himself Inertial =artful > > >> >> >> You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when > >> >> >> using > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> was > >> >> >> obvious. > > >> >> > ----------------------- > >> >> > are you by any chance PD ??? (:-) > >> >> > ---------------------- > > >> >> Are you? Silly me .. I forgot .. you are Joseph Goebbels. > > >> > ---------------- > >> > (:-) > >> > i like your humor sense > >> > anyway > >> > here is my question again > >> > and lets see if inertial can ansewr a simple question just by > >> > yes > >> > or no : > >> > is the Plank time ie > >> > 5.38 exp -44 seconds > > >> Yes (approximately) > > >> > again > > >> > 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS.. > > >> Still yes. Planck time hasn't change since you last asked me. Its value > >> does not change over time (so in that sense it is not time dependent > >> :):)) > > >> > is it time dependent or not ?? > > >> What does "is a time duration time dependent" even mean? > > >> Is the numerical value of it dependent on the units of measure you use.. > >> Yes > >> .. of course .. like everything we measure, the numerical value is unit > >> dependent. > > >> > just 'yes' or 'no' > > >> Can't .. that would be dishonest. We first have to work out what the > >> hell > >> you are actually asking. 'Is Planck time time dependent' .. what sort of > >> a > >> stupid question is that? If you can explain exactly what you mean by > >> that, > >> then I will answer it, > > >> > please no stories from the beginning of Universe > >> > to its end !! > > >> Once upon a time, long long ago, Porat was born .... > > >> > TIA > >> > Y.Porat > >> > ----------------------- > > > ok fine at last!! > > you said YES > > and thank you for that > > Its the same answer I've given for the last few post. Apparently you have > troubles reading and understanding answer of more than one word. ------------------------ at the last posts ((:-) (:-) but how about the beginning of this thread?? do you think you can cheat the whole world ??!! anyone can and invited to see what you climed at the beginning of this thread !!! ---------------------- > > > (actually you had no choice- as a sane sober person ...) > > > no need for more much mumbligs > > from the beginning of the universe untilll the end if it > > though > > it might be connected to the beginning of universe since > > listen carefully > > NO ONE CAN IMAGINE OR TALK SENSIBLY ABOUT A SHORTER TIME > > IN PHYSICS > > **AND THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THAT TIME** for smallest photon > > emission of energy !! > > AND NOT YOUR SILLY SECOND!! > > LIAR (again). (:-) Hi Josef (:-) ---------------- > > I have NEVER claimed it takes a second. No-one in physics claims that idot crook i we were dealing withthe smallest SINGLE PHOTON AGAIN ***SMALLEST*** SINGLE **SINGLE *** SINGLE !!! PHOTON NOT MANY OF THEM GOT IT CROCKY ?? -------------- .. The > ONLY person to make the claim that photon emission takes place in a second > was you. ------------ just how far can a Nazi pigg Josef Goebbels go ??? (:-) ----------------------------- > > > now *why* PD could not answer that simple question??!! > > You'd have to ask him . Personally, I just don't think he is bothered > replying to such stupid questions, and dose not want to deal with your > dishonesty. (;-) you think that all people here are idiot with nomemory -------------------- > > > i will tell you why > > because it s implications are FAR GOING > > AND REFUTING HIM AND YOU > > and your claims -- > > Nonsense > > > (about one whole second ) > > I have made no claims about one second being in any way special. The only > one who has done so was you. > > > just at the top of this thread > > that any one can see above !! > > and you cant cheat about those > > RECORDED (just above ) facts > > -------------------- > > I am not the cheat. You are. So where is it you think me saying photon > emission is a second? Show it. ------------- just at the frst posts yoiu suggested (and even that was under my guidence fort you claimed that a single photon is hf anyone cansee it that you are a psychopath lier !! ---------- only later you intruduced h f n and strressed that n IS INTEGERS (for that single photon! not all readers here are idiots they can se it jsut above !! ----------- > > > anyway > > let u s go to my second question > > And hope noone notices your dishonesty. > > > DID ANYONE BEFORE ME > > SUGGESTED THAT PLANK TIME > > AS THE DURATION OF THE SMALLEST > > PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION ?? > > Yes .. me. (:-) PSYCHOPATH !!! shameless imbecile crook --------------------- here goes little Josef Goebbels after all your E photon = n h f with n as integers is it you that suggested it ??!! and were is the **Planck constant** WITH THE FIGURES 5.38 exp-44 who was the first one EVEN in this thraed that did it !!! just bring a quote even from this thread !!! and tell us the number of post in which you did it before me actually you started to mention the plank time ONLY AFTER ME right shameless Nazi pig psychopath !! anyone that will follow this thread will see it does littel Josef count on it that no reader here with bother to follow it?? but that exactly was Josef Goebbels tricks !!! (anyway you say the it was you the colyrighter and you said all along that photon energy emission is NOT TIME DEPENDENT so what has that plank time got to do with you ?? you AND PD said all along the beginning --- 'instantaneous''*** and not time dependent** you stressed all along 'not time dependent '!! so why at last you started to talk about my Planck time ?? and now you admitted that plank time ***IS** TIME DEPENDENT !! 2 you even cheated about bringing l'inks' about preceding me with that photon energy emission as Plank time dependent and there was nothing like that ***in all your links !!** !!! got it little Josef Goebbels ?? EVERY ONE CAN SEE IT JUST ABOVE !! if needed i will quote the exact post !!above BYE Josef Y.P ----------------- - OF YOURS that i asked about ???
From: eric gisse on 23 Mar 2010 09:26 Y.Porat wrote: [snip all, unread] WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! WAAAHHHHHH! WAAAAAH!
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 09:54 On Mar 23, 3:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Y.Porat wrote: > > [snip all, unread] > > WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! WAAAHHHHHH! WAAAAAH! -------------------- Hi Eric where have you been allthat time? is i t possible that you are Inertial ?? (:-) now all of us have a problem: since Inertial was making a great innovation that deserves a prize suppose that the prize committee is looking for that ANONYMOUS inertial = Artful (or may be even PD ??) or may be even Eric Gisse ?? so the comity is looking about were to find that young genius BUT WERE SHOULD THEY FIND HIM?? AND WAHT IS **HIS **REAL NAME WHAT IS HIS REAL ADDRESS for sending him the prize ?? so let us announce a Prize for anyone that will reveal the real name and identity and address of that genius of the honorable 'Inertial ' how about a 100000 $ for doing it ??? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------------------
From: ben6993 on 23 Mar 2010 11:22 On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 1:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:69baa3b5-5ac0-4703-99dc-315bb7e7a8f0(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Mar 23, 1:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:825d5df4-dc7b-4e35-b649-a6e1e20c28d6(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On Mar 23, 12:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:6c0d19bb-b079-4a62-be63-91cfb06037d6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> > On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > Here is mybetterdefinition about the range > > >> >> >> > in which the real single photon energy emission should be found > > >> >> >> > (in > > >> >> >> > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > > >> >> >> > E single photon = hf n > > > >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf > > > >> >> You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense > > > >> >> >> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > >> >> >> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 > > > >> >> Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1 > > > >> >> >> > 2 > > >> >> >> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it > > > >> >> There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0 > > > >> >> >> > you need for it > > > >> >> >> > a > > >> >> >> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells > > >> >> >> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated > > >> >> >> > by photon electric cells ) > > > >> >> >> > b > > >> >> >> > a Led torch > > >> >> >> > c > > >> >> >> > the experiment must be in a background light > > >> >> >> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!.. > > >> >> >> > iow light wave that is long enough > > >> >> >> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit ) > > > >> >> >> > so > > >> >> >> > 1 > > >> >> >> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells > > >> >> >> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!! > > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! > > >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second etc ) > > > >> >> >> > 2 > > >> >> >> > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you > > >> >> >> > calculator > > >> >> >> > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then > > >> >> >> > *disappear* > > >> >> >> > 3 > > >> >> >> > what do you get there ?? > > > >> >> >> > some hints: > > >> >> >> > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the > > >> >> >> > calculator activation ('life time' )-- > > > >> >> >> > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION* > > >> >> >> > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!** > > > >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does > > >> >> NOT > > >> >> prove your > > >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > > >> >> >> > (in our case less than a second > > >> >> >> > but more then zero time !!! > > > >> >> Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does > > >> >> NOT > > >> >> prove your > > >> >> nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > > >> >> >> > Q E D !! > > > >> >> There is no QED there > > > >> >> >> > historic copyright ! > > > >> >> Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense? > > > >> >> >> > Yehiel Porat > > >> >> >> > Mars 2010 > > >> >> >> > TIA > > >> >> >> > ------------------ > > > >> >> >> and only now after all this long tedious > > >> >> >> thred > > >> >> >> i can bring my > > >> >> >> bottom line 'side product ' (:-) > > > >> >> There is none > > > >> >> >> the sensational pick antic > > >> >> >> side product innovation > > >> >> >> punch line : > > > >> >> >> since we found in this thread that the > > >> >> >> smallest photon energy is : > > > >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 Joules > > >> >> >> inorder to find the > > > >> >> No .. you found nothing of the sort > > > >> >> >> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!! > > >> >> >> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by > > >> >> >> c^2 > > >> >> >> 9 exp16!! > > >> >> >> and we get > > > >> >> >> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16 > > >> >> >> and we get the > > >> >> >> smallest PHOTON MASS : > > > >> >> Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest > > >> >> photon > > >> >> mass > > >> >> (because photon mass is zero) > > > >> >> >> ===================== > > >> >> >> Smallest photon **mass** > > >> >> >> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! > > >> >> >> ===================== > > > >> >> Nonsense .. even with === around it > > > >> >> >> and mind you > > >> >> >> there is jsut one kind of mass > > >> >> >> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one > > > >> >> Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length. > > > >> >> That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a > > >> >> relativistic > > >> >> mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a > > >> >> measurement > > >> >> of > > >> >> different things. > > > >> >> Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both > > >> >> lengths > > > >> >> >> there is the MKS system > > > >> >> >> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM > > >> >> >> just the MKS > > >> >> >> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !! > > > >> >> noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone is > > >> >> disputing as though they are. > > > >> >> >> ------------------------------- > > >> >> >> indeed fantastically small mass > > >> >> >> and only now you can start to understand why > > >> >> >> people said that the photon mass is > > >> >> >> practically zero!! > > >> >> >> but now i say > > >> >> >> practically is not necessarily theoretically !! > > > >> >> Yes .. theoretically > > > >> >> >> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important > > > >> >> You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary > > >> >> numbers > > >> >> and > > >> >> multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. > > >> >> That > > >> >> is > > >> >> just nonsense. > > > >> >> >> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in > > >> >> >> money saving uses !! > > >> >> >> from now on( i think) > > >> >> >> there is no use anymore to look for > > >> >> >> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!! > > >> >> >> because there is nothing like that > > > >> >> >> old Catto said : > > >> >> >> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > >> >> >> so > > > >> >> >> to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive > > >> >> >> TIME !!! > > >> >> >> for further advance . > > > >> >> >> copyright Yehiel Porat > > >> >> >> March 2010 > > > >> >> More nonsense copyrighted > > > >> >> >> TIA > > >> >> >> Y.Porat > > >> >> >> --------------------------------------- > > > >> >> > Paul Draper was defeated > > >> >> > and refuses to admit it !!! > > > >> >> Never happened. > > > >> >> > i was asking him two simple questions > > >> >> > 1 > > >> >> > is the Planck Time definition as > > >> >> > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... > > > >> >> No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around 5.39x10^-44 > > >> >> seconds. > > >> >> Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is > > >> >> dependent > > >> >> on the units of measure. > > > >> >> > (it is defined by seconds) > > > >> >> No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds (or > > >> >> any > > >> >> other unit) > > > >> >> > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > > >> >> That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. > > >> >> What > > >> >> do > > >> >> you mean by a time dependent time duration? > > > >> >> > 2 > > >> >> > who was the first one to shggest > > >> >> > the Planck time > > >> >> > as > > >> >> > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR > > >> >> > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY > > >> >> > TO BE EMITTED ?? > > > >> >> Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the > > >> >> smallest > > >> >> quanta of > > >> >> time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense. > > > >> >> But I'm sure others have said that before you. > > > >> >> > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) > > > >> >> He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find out. > > >> >> That > > >> >> doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he replies > > >> >> "I > > >> >> don't know, you have defeated me" > > > >> >> > BTW > > >> >> > can anyone reveal > > >> >> > who is the nasty pig anonymous > > >> >> > that is less than one year on this ng !!!. > > >> >> > and is calling himself Inertial =artful > > > >> >> You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when using > > >> >> a > > >> >> different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought that > > >> >> was > > >> >> obvious. > > > >> > ----------------------- > > >> > are you by any chance PD ??? (:-) > > >> > ---------------------- > > > >> Are you? Silly me .. I forgot .. you are Joseph Goebbels. > > > > ---------------- > > > (:-) > > > i like your humor sense > > > anyway > > > here is my question again > > > and lets see if inertial can ansewr a simple question just by > > > yes > > > or no : > > > is the Plank time ie > > > 5.38 exp -44 seconds > > > Yes (approximately) > > > > again > > > > 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS.. > > > Still yes. Planck time hasn't change since you last asked me. Its value > > does not change over time (so in that sense it is not time dependent :):)) > > > > is it time dependent or not ?? > > > What does "is a time duration time dependent" even mean? > > > Is the numerical value of it dependent on the units of measure you use. Yes > > .. of course .. like everything we measure, the numerical value is unit > > dependent. > > > > just 'yes' or 'no' > > > Can't .. that would be dishonest. We first have to work out what the hell > > you are actually asking. 'Is Planck time time dependent' .. what sort of a > > stupid question is that? If you can explain exactly what you mean by that, > > then I will answer it, > > > > please no stories from the beginning of Universe > > > to its end !! > > > Once upon a time, long long ago, Porat was born .... > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ----------------------- > > ok fine at last!! > you said YES > and thank you for that > (actually you had no choice- as a sane sober person ...) > > no need for more much mumbligs > from the beginning of the universe untilll the end if it > though > it might be connected to the beginning of universe since > listen carefully > NO ONE CAN IMAGINE OR TALK SENSIBLY ABOUT A SHORTER TIME > IN PHYSICS > **AND THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THAT TIME** for smallest photon > emission of energy !! > AND NOT YOUR SILLY SECOND!! > now *why* PD could not answer that simple question??!! > i will tell you why > because it s implications are FAR GOING > AND REFUTING HIM AND YOU > and your claims -- > (about one whole second ) just at the top of this thread > that any one can see above !! > and you cant cheat about those > RECORDED (just above ) facts > -------------------- > > anyway > let u s go to my second question > > DID ANYONE BEFORE ME > SUGGESTED THAT PLANK TIME > AS THE DURATION OF THE SMALLEST > PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION ?? > how about > yes ?? > or no ?? > or i don t know ??? > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------- Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of Planck time? I wrote the following (see below) to you, Porat, about a month ago. It is certainly not original as I was just thinking through and writing out what Artful / Inertial had been pointing out. I am sure it is very elementary for him. As well as thinking of instantaneous as not necessarily being smaller than Planck time you can also say that a point particle is not necessarily smaller than the Planck length. Regards Ben On Feb 26, 11:48 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 10:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > instantaneous done > > todo isto cahnge > > and you cant change by definition in zero time!! > > I feel sure that Zeno's paradox's are at the heart of your arguement. > And by definition any Paradox is paradoxical and therefore difficult > to understand or to explain. > > Zero is inversely related to infinity. > You can't actually reach infinity by counting 1, 2, 3, etc etc etc. > though your number continues to get bigger > You also can't reach zero through counting 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 etc etc etc . > Though you can approach closer and closer to zero. > > There are different categories of infinity and likewise there ought to > be different classes of zero. I can understand having, say, no apples > in my larder, but that zero is not the same as what we are talking > about here. > > When you are being told something is instantaneously, you are very > rightly concerned that you want to be able to take a time interval > rather than a mathematical point of zero time. > > You can define zero as a mathematical point on the time line, but you > cannot take two points on the time axis and bring them together until > their interval is zero. > > A problem is that if you require something to happen in a time > interval rather than at an instant, then what is the minimum time > interval that you are content for something to occur or be created in? > > Say you take your interval as between the points of time at 1/3 second > and 1/2 second. Ie a time interval of 1/2-1/3 = 1/6th of a second. > Is that enough time for you to be content for something to be created > in? > > The trouble is that there is no smallest time interval. > > If you give me any two fractions 1/m and 1/n, I can always give you a > smaller interval within the interval you specify. > Eg between 1/3 and 1/2 there is another smaller time interval between > time points (say) 9/24 and 10/24. > > This can go on indefinitely, in mathematics at least, until the > intervals get much much smaller than about 5 times 10**(-44) sec, i.e. > smaller than Planck time. > > For photon emission, the question of how long this event takes is not > up for any person to state a time interval, but the photon has to be > up and running immediately after creation to have a constant speed c. > > In a mathematical calculation, we would not be able to create the > photon as we are still counting down to smaller and smaller time > intervals and never being able to stop. (Though maybe this can be > contradicted by mathematicians, as the infinite is very puzzling.) > > Physics has called a halt, to this counting down, at the Planck time > of 5 times 10**(-44) sec. > > I think of instantaneous only as meaning it occured in an interval of > time less that 5 times 10**(-44) sec. That is very tiny, I admit. But > it is not the zero that you seem to be concerned about as being > implied by instantaneous. > > As well as "instantaneous" not being a zero interval of time, Planck > time is, I think, related to the total energy of the universe. > > If our universe had a trillion times more energy, the new Planck time > would, I think, be a trillion times smaller. So in that sense the > Plank time and the meaning of "instantaneous" is dependent on the > total amount of energy which happened to go into the formation of the > universe. (Assuming that Planck's constant did not change.) > > If the universe only had the average energy of a visible light photon, > the Planck time for it would be relatively long. I am sure a physicist > could calculate it. > > In any universe made out of a finite amount of energy, there would be > a Planck time of some value or other and you would not be happy about > Plank time implying a zero time interval. But I would be happy that > "instantaneous" did not literally mean zero. > > I would only be worrying with you if the universe were of infinite > energy where, consequently, Planck time would imply a zero time > inteval. But I cannot contemplate any universe being of infinite > energy.
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 11:52
On Mar 23, 5:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! > > > >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second > RECORDED (just above ) facts > > -------------------- > > > > > ----------------------- > > Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of Planck time? ---------------------- not exactly! plank is no doubt a grat hero but waht he did ddint deal withthe smallest photon energy his formula was E=hf full stiop)!!! but that is as i showed not the smallest single photon!! as far as i know th ePlank time derivation was not done by Plank it was done later !!! 2 plank ddint wrote his formula as E min photon = h times Plank time that is good as i showed with my experiment for a huge number of single photons not for a single photon his formula was again E = hf and f is one second defined !! the suggested probebly for the first time unless found precedent-ed ) single photon of my is done in 5.38 Exp-44 OF A SECOND !!! 2 even you all along the discussions withyou spoke about 'instantaneous * and you explicitly insisted that 'IT IS NOT TIME DEPENDENT !!!' you repeated it again and again and that is as well recorded !! you can t now after all my fights here come a twist your instantaneous and not time dependent to be instantaneous= as Plank time instantaneous andnot time dependent is .... ZERO TIME !!! ans ikep again and again explainig thatnothing can be DONE in zero time and no one (aFair) around me including you ! said **then** that he agrees with me !! that noting can be done in zero time !! i can remember me claiming that even an inelastic collision is not done instantaneously !!! and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks here !! so sorry not much credit can be given even to you the only credit that i can give you is that unlike the others -you showed and spoke about your not being sure about the arguments in those threads iow you was doubtful about anything ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- |