Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 06:08 On Mar 23, 1:51 am, "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 !!! > 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 > --------------------------- now i just wonder where has Inertial disappeared ?? (:-) Y.P --------------------------
From: Jerry on 23 Mar 2010 06:24 On Mar 23, 5:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 1:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > --------------------------- > > now i just wonder where has Inertial disappeared ?? (:-) > Whatever makes you think that you are worth more than an occasional source of idle amusement? You should realize that you do not -really- provide any intellectual challenge, and that sparring with you can just get boring. Jerry
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 06:31 On Mar 23, 12:24 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 23, 5:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 1:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > --------------------------- > > > now i just wonder where has Inertial disappeared ?? (:-) > > Whatever makes you think that you are worth more than an > occasional source of idle amusement? > > You should realize that you do not -really- provide any > intellectual challenge, and that sparring with you can just > get boring. > > Jerry ------------------ ok another genius scientist around the table .....(:-) so MAY BE YOU ANSWER MY TWO ABOVE (difficult (:-) QUESTIONS ?? TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 23 Mar 2010 06:37 "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 !! 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: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 06:53
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 ??? (:-) ---------------------- |