Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 24 Mar 2010 04:14 On Mar 23, 8:56 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > 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. ------------------- so who the hell is that nasty pig ??!! i am going to announce a prize of 100000 $ to reveal that pig Y.P -------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 24 Mar 2010 04:22 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. ---------------------- it is interesting to find out that Ben 699 from England !!(Manchester ?)about 68 years old is the same time on the net as ..... who ???? as Inertial = Artful = ???!!! (:-) can i start to save my 100000 $ (:-) Y.P ----------------------------
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 24 Mar 2010 05:32 Inertial wrote on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:46:06 +1100: > "Juan R.González-Álvarez" <nowhere(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote in > message news:pan.2010.03.23.19.00.38(a)canonicalscience.com... >> 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. > > You are filth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filth -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: ben6993 on 24 Mar 2010 06:16 On Mar 24, 8:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > ---------------------- > it is interesting to find out that Ben 699 > from England !!(Manchester ?)about 68 years old > is the same time on the net as ..... who ???? > as Inertial = Artful = ???!!! (:-) > can i start to save my 100000 $ (:-) > Y.P > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Porat Calm down, put your feet up, take it easy. I am 60 not 68. (I wrote that in a post to you on Feb 22.) Does your basic error cause you to change your conclusions in any way? But yes, you are quite right. I am Inertial and PD. You should now send that $1000000 dollars to a charity of my choice. Give me a few days to pick a favourite charity. By the way, I am also Uncle Al, Sue, Androcles and also everyone else on this ng too. So that just leaves you and me. And as I am an AI program, that just leaves you. But I shouldn't feed your paranoia. None of the above is true.(Except that I really am 60 years old.) No believe me, honestly I am none of those people. Believe me, none of them, ... Honestly ... Now, calm down, put your feet up, take it easy. Regards Ben
From: Y.Porat on 24 Mar 2010 07:59
On Mar 24, 12:16 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 8:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > ---------------------- > > it is interesting to find out that Ben 699 > > from England !!(Manchester ?)about 68 years old > > is the same time on the net as ..... who ???? > > as Inertial = Artful = ???!!! (:-) > > can i start to save my 100000 $ (:-) > > Y.P > > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear Porat > > Calm down, > put your feet up, > take it easy. > > I am 60 not 68. > (I wrote that in a post to you on Feb 22.) > Does your basic error cause you to change your conclusions in any way? > > But yes, you are quite right. I am Inertial and PD. > You should now send that $1000000 dollars to a charity of my choice. > Give me a few days to pick a favourite charity. > > By the way, I am also Uncle Al, Sue, Androcles and also everyone else > on this ng too. So that just leaves you and me. > > And as I am an AI program, that just leaves you. > > But I shouldn't feed your paranoia. None of the above is true.(Except > that I really am 60 years old.) No believe me, honestly I am none of > those people. Believe me, none of them, ... Honestly ... > > Now, > calm down, > put your feet up, > take it easy. > > Regards > Ben -------------------- anyway how long are you on the net?? did you was on the net before that ?? as far as i remember you are a mathematician am i right ?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------- |