Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert Higgins on 23 Mar 2010 18:01 On Mar 23, 4:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 9:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Evidently, the only way to get anyone to talk to you is to pretend to be incredibly dense, while periodically lapsing into name-calling. NOBODY could possibly be a stupid as you appear to be. Most intelligent people here believe that others want to learn, too, and try to help. All you want is attention, and you've found a good way to get it (at the cost of wasting everyone's time). You are just the flip side of JT.
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 23:53 On Mar 24, 12:01 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 4:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 9:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 2:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Evidently, the only way to get anyone to talk to you is to pretend to > be incredibly dense, while periodically lapsing into name-calling. > NOBODY could possibly be a stupid as you appear to be. > > Most intelligent people here believe that others want to learn, too, > and try to help. All you want is attention, and you've found a good > way to get it (at the cost of wasting everyone's time). You are just > the flip side of JT. ======================================----------------------- instead of personal fights, ego fights etc let us concentrate just on 3 simple SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS THAT PD(and alike) HAS TO ANSWER IN ORDER OF BEING AN HONEST PERSON AND A REAL SCIENTIST: (it seems that no one ever before asked those very simple questions so may be it is not his fault that no one before asked it !!! his fault is that had those questions asked by me he refused to think and answer it because it was Y.Porat and not one of his clan !!!:) 1 is photon energy emission dependent on ****A VARIABLE TIME ??**** 2 is E=hf dependent on a VARIABLE TIME (??!!) 3 who was the first one that suggested first that: 3a this variable time for the smallest photon emission is smaller than a second !! 3b later suggested that : this variable time for the definition of the smallest photon energy definition- IS THE PLANK TIME ( 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS !!??) just that simple no personal callings no Ego fighting etc etc !! ------------------------------------- TIA to Higgins and to PD (not to Inertial because you must admit - we had more than enough enough of him ....) Y.Porat -------------------------
From: Inertial on 24 Mar 2010 01:03 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0da57889-026e-4bf9-975f-462c4e0d63e5(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 24, 12:01 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Mar 23, 4:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mar 23, 9:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Mar 23, 2:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Evidently, the only way to get anyone to talk to you is to pretend to >> be incredibly dense, while periodically lapsing into name-calling. >> NOBODY could possibly be a stupid as you appear to be. >> >> Most intelligent people here believe that others want to learn, too, >> and try to help. All you want is attention, and you've found a good >> way to get it (at the cost of wasting everyone's time). You are just >> the flip side of JT. > > ======================================----------------------- > instead of personal fights, ego fights etc > > let us concentrate just on 3 simple SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS That would make a nice change > THAT PD(and alike) HAS TO ANSWER IN ORDER OF BEING AN HONEST PERSON > AND A REAL SCIENTIST: No .. there is no pre-requisite to answer your questions in order to be honest or a real scientist > (it seems that no one ever before asked those very simple > questions Highly unlikely. > so may be it is not his fault that > no one before asked it !!! > his fault is that > had those questions asked by me > he refused to think and answer it > because it was Y.Porat and not one of his clan !!!:) Has nothing to do with clans > 1 > is photon energy emission dependent on > ****A VARIABLE TIME ??**** No > 2 > is E=hf dependent on a VARIABLE TIME (??!!) No > 3 > who was the first one that suggested first that: > > 3a > this variable time for the smallest photon emission > is smaller than a second !! There is no variable time, and I said it was far less than a second .. I said it was in the smallest quantum of time. > 3b > later suggested that : > this variable time for the definition of the smallest > photon energy definition- > > IS THE PLANK TIME ( 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS !!??) I did .. I said it was emitted in the smallest quantum of time before you suddenly claimed out of the blue that it was also in that time. Seems that you stole the idea from my posts. And note that if it *is* Planck time, then it is NOT variable (Planck time is a constant).. so you have just contradicted your own claims > just that simple Very simple > no personal callings > no Ego fighting etc etc !! Don't start them if you don't want them. > ------------------------------------- > TIA > to Higgins > and to PD > > (not to Inertial because > you must admit - we had > more than enough enough of him ....) > Y.Porat Tough. You just can't handle that I know far more physics than you ever will, and that I can see your nonsense for what it is.
From: Y.Porat on 24 Mar 2010 01:35 On Mar 23, 8:11 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. ----------------- if you still say that the SMALLEST single photon energy is hf it is **you** that is still locked on your misunderstanding of the issue !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
From: Inertial on 24 Mar 2010 02:10
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:94ee9909-cdee-42be-a950-3c3e6fa4b98f(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 23, 8:11 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > ----------------- > if you still say that the SMALLEST single photon > energy is > hf It not the smallest .. nor the largest .. it is simply THE photon energy. E = hf is the energy of each single photon from EMR of frequency f. Different frequencies of light mean photons of different energies .. but always E= hf. There is no smallest energy photon unless there is a smallest frequency EMR ... and frequency and energy is observer-frame dependent. > it is **you** that is still locked on your misunderstanding of the > issue !! You have NO IDEA what you're talking about, let alone what any relevant issue is. |