Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 12:54 On Mar 22, 6:51 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 > > > > 2 > > > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it > > > > 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!!** > > > (in our case less than a second > > > but more then zero time !!! > > > > Q E D !! > > > > historic copyright ! > > > > Yehiel Porat > > > Mars 2010 > > > TIA > > > ------------------ > > > and only now after all this long tedious > > thred > > i can bring my > > bottom line 'side product ' (:-) > > > 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 > > > 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 : > > > ===================== > > Smallest photon **mass** > > 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! > > ===================== > > and mind you > > there is jsut one kind of mass > > no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one > > > 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 !! > > ------------------------------- > > 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 !! > > the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important > > > **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 > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------------------- > > Paul Draper was defeated > and refuses to admit it !!! Childish schoolyard taunts. You want my attention, and if you don't get it, you're going to say you won an argument, in a cheap, childish attempt to get my attention. This is highly unattractive behavior for an old man that should know better and you should be ashamed of yourself. Get a grip. And while you're doing that, shut the hell up. > i was asking him two simple questions > 1 > is the Planck Time definition as > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... > (it is defined by seconds) > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > 2 > who was the first one to shggest > the Planck time > as > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY > TO BE EMITTED ?? > > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) > > 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 > ..... (:-) > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------------
From: John Christiansen on 23 Mar 2010 12:55 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:4ba899ec$0$8828$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(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 !! Just for clarification MKS stands for Meter Kilogram Second, M is NOT for mass > > 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. > >
From: ben6993 on 23 Mar 2010 14:11 On Mar 23, 3:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ---------------------------- > 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 I need no credit. The formula is all yours. That goes for any supposed improvement on E-hf that you care to claim. I cannot understand your logic and so I have never agreed with you, but the discussions have been interesting to me, despite some mind bending illogicality. The illogicality has made me think things through more than I might otherwise have done. As in: "Amazing! How can anyone not understand that arguement". But I have always tried to understand how you see things from your point of view. I thought that at last you were beginning to accept that the words 'instantaneous' [and, consequently, 'point'] do not necessarily imply zero size. I also thought that, as you now seem to be accepting that emission takes place from one instant to the next ....that your next logical step was going to be to accept the original formula E=hf. .... but, clearly, not yet.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 23 Mar 2010 14:56 Y.Porat wrote on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:54:24 -0700: > 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 ?? (:-) Sometimes one is inside the other, but Eric and Inertial are not the same person.
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 15:09
On Mar 23, 6:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 6:51 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 > > > > > 2 > > > > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it > > > > > 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!!** > > > > (in our case less than a second > > > > but more then zero time !!! > > > > > Q E D !! > > > > > historic copyright ! > > > > > Yehiel Porat > > > > Mars 2010 > > > > TIA > > > > ------------------ > > > > and only now after all this long tedious > > > thred > > > i can bring my > > > bottom line 'side product ' (:-) > > > > 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 > > > > 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 : > > > > ===================== > > > Smallest photon **mass** > > > 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! > > > ===================== > > > and mind you > > > there is jsut one kind of mass > > > no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one > > > > 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 !! > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 !! > > > the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important > > > > **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 > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------------------------- > > > Paul Draper was defeated > > and refuses to admit it !!! > > Childish schoolyard taunts. > > You want my attention, and if you don't get it, you're going to say > you won an argument, in a cheap, childish attempt to get my attention. > > This is highly unattractive behavior for an old man that should know > better and you should be ashamed of yourself. > > Get a grip. And while you're doing that, shut the hell up. > > > i was asking him two simple questions > > 1 > > is the Planck Time definition as > > 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... > > (it is defined by seconds) > > is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > 2 > > who was the first one to shggest > > the Planck time > > as > > THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR > > THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY > > TO BE EMITTED ?? > > > ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) > > > 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 > > ..... (:-) > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------- idiot crook speak physics arguments :!! you said all along that photon emission is done instantaneous you introduced that inatantaneous ie you understand nothing about basic physics nothing is done instantaneous later you said as a result of your idiotic instantaneous that photon energy emission is not time dependent !! while any chield would understand that energy emission in one second is less than in 2 seconds and later i introduced my simple experiment that shows that photons energy is emitted in much less than a second it means as well that the real single photon was not found until then and you caimed all laong that the single photon energy is E = hf i dont blame you that was the common parroting along 100 years !! you just parroted it but since i started my arguments and experiments you should start to change som thing in your mind but you ddint do it i showed t at phton energy is done IN LESS THAN ONCE SECOND !! so E = hf was refuted as a *single photon* energy emission and still you ddint get it and you still ddint get even now that for the first time a QM paradigm is refuted!! because the real single photon WAS NEVER DEFINED PROPERLY !! SO THERE WAS NEVER BASE TO TALK ABOUT ' A SINGLE PHOTON INTERFERING WITH ITSELF!! the real single photon is so small that no one can neither detect it nor handle it nor manipulate it it is in order of magnitude of exp-77 joules it is a very important development in physics and you talk about childish behavior !! just because your childish Ego defending your 'status ' 'come what come may !! you are an irresponsible scientist !!! Y.P ----------------------- |