Reaction-Action-Activities relationship?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 22 Mar 2010 07:51 On Mar 22, 1:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9f03ae6c-0927-4c2c-b3cd-ed90a5d2e775(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > On Mar 22, 4:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:171639c6-faea-4fc7-8385-d2380a7ce030(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 22, 12:52 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:10a93758-a2ab-4e55-9c51-fa23d4c76d97(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Mar 21, 11:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:4b2cfc64-958c-4309-ba6b-b4a4d8247eb9(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 7:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mar 20, 5:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > On Mar 20, 4:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > On Mar 20, 1:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > > On Mar 19, 10:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:29 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > On Mar 18, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:28 am, Kumar > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:49 am, Saimhain Moose > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > <samhainmo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 12:21 am, Kumar > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Are activities not dependant on applied > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > forces? > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Exactly what do you mean by "activities"? > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Something done as an action or a movement. > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > They're not the same. A movement (specifically a > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > change > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > in > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > movement) > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > is the *response* to a force. The force is the > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > cause, > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > the > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > acceleration > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > is the effect. Motion is not a cause. > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > What is the differance between acceleration & > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > motion? > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > Motion includes any change in position, which can be > >> >> >> >> > > > > > done > >> >> >> >> > > > > > at > >> >> >> >> > > > > > constant > >> >> >> >> > > > > > velocity (for which the acceleration is zero) or with > >> >> >> >> > > > > > changing > >> >> >> >> > > > > > velocity (for which the acceleration is nonzero). > > >> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------- > >> >> >> >> > > > > and that is exactly why by definition > >> >> >> >> > > > > photon energy emission is not > >> >> >> >> > > > > INSTANTANEOUS (:-) > > >> >> >> >> > > > Nope. Photons are not accelerated. They are traveling at c > >> >> >> >> > > > when > >> >> >> >> > > > they > >> >> >> >> > > > are created. > > >> >> >> >> > > ------------------ > >> >> >> >> > > you must be joking!! > > >> >> >> >> > > we dont deal with the traveling of photons > >> >> >> >> > > we deal with > >> >> >> >> > > THE TIME THEY ARE CREATED !! > >> >> >> >> > > OR ABSORBED !! > > >> >> >> >> > Yes, exactly. When they are created, they are not accelerated. > >> >> >> >> > The > >> >> >> >> > instant they are created, they are going at c. > >> >> >> >> > No, I'm not joking. Not everything behaves like little red > >> >> >> >> > wagons. > > >> >> >> >> > > didi you see and understood the > >> >> >> >> > > experiment i introduced > > >> >> >> >> > > th e enimssion of ELECTRONS of the photoelectric cell was > >> >> >> >> > > linearly proportional to time duration of the > >> >> >> >> > > lead torch > >> >> >> >> > > AND IT WAS LESS THAN A SECOND !!! > > >> >> >> >> > > the distance between the torch and the > >> >> >> >> > > photoelectric cell was 40 Cm !!! > > >> >> >> >> > > so what is your talking about > >> >> >> >> > > the time travel of the photons ?? > >> >> >> >> > > (i try my best not to be rude ..) > > >> >> >> >> > > it was not from the sun > >> >> >> >> > > it was from the torch > >> >> >> >> > > and even so > >> >> >> >> > > the energy emission took time - > >> >> >> >> > > not all the *electrons* were emitted instantaneously !!! > >> >> >> >> > > they came out of the cells -- one after the other in some > >> >> >> >> > > interval > >> >> >> >> > > of > >> >> >> >> > > time > >> >> >> >> > > and during less than a second !!! > >> >> >> >> > > so > >> >> >> >> > > time absorption of photon energy is > >> >> >> >> > > TIMW DEOENDENT OR NOT > > >> >> >> >> > > do you have a shorter time than the Planck time > >> >> >> >> > > ****that can be proven experimentally ??*** > > >> >> >> >> > > iow > >> >> >> >> > > is there any experiment that can be **done** > >> >> >> >> > > **or followed *** a physical event that is shorter than > >> >> >> >> > > Plank time ?? > >> >> >> >> > > ie > >> >> >> >> > > 5.38 exp-44 second !!! ??? > > >> >> >> >> > > was it not you that was preaching that > >> >> >> >> > > if something cannot be proven by experiment > >> >> >> >> > > it is .......?.... > >> >> >> >> > > even theoretically nothing can be** done** > >> >> >> >> > > literally instantaneous > >> >> >> >> > > because to do is to change something > >> >> >> >> > > to change is to move something > >> >> >> >> > > and to move is by definition a time user !! > > >> >> >> >> > > please answer all my above climes > >> >> >> >> > > and not just one of them !! > > >> >> >> >> > > TIA > >> >> >> >> > > Y.Porat > >> >> >> >> > > ------------- > > >> >> >> >> ------------- > >> >> >> >> you certainly are joking: > > >> >> >> >> 1 > >> >> >> >> because you ddint answer all my questions > >> >> >> >> as i asked you ... > >> >> >> >> 2 > >> >> >> >> you was hand waiving > >> >> >> >> based on no experimental data > > >> >> >> >> while i based my climes on the experimental > >> >> >> >> facts by Plank and othrs > >> >> >> >> ie > >> >> >> >> they were to difficult to digest for you > >> >> >> >> 3 > >> >> >> >> your 'instantaneous' emitting of energy is > >> >> >> >> against the H U P > >> >> >> >> it gives you > >> >> >> >> infinite error for energy emission !!! > > >> >> >> >> ATB > >> >> >> >> Y.Porat > >> >> >> >> --------------------- > > >> >> >> > actually to be honest !! > > >> >> >> > the HUP test occurred to me just yesterday > > >> >> >> > and it is clear to me that it tells us that > >> >> >> > instantaneous emission of photon energy > >> >> >> > is clearly against the HUP > > >> >> >> Nope > > >> >> >> > but still > >> >> >> > i dont know how i manage or what does it mean to my Planck > >> >> >> > time > >> >> >> > emission of photon energy > >> >> >> > ie > >> >> >> > during 5.38 exp-44 second !!!... > > >> >> >> Which is instantaneous .. that means in a single instant. One > >> >> >> instant > >> >> >> it > >> >> >> doesn't exist, the next it does. That's what we've been telling > >> >> >> you > > >> >> >> > (my more abstarct time definition of it was > >> >> >> > bigger than zero but MUCH smaller than 1.0000) > > >> >> >> > so lets examine it together in this ng!! > >> >> >> > or may be better in my original thread about it > > >> >> >> > 'A better new definition of the real single photon > >> >> >> > energy emission ') > > >> >> >> You don't have a better definition, and we don't need one > > >> >> > ---------------------- > >> >> > now you sat that 5.38 exp-44 is instantaneous???!!! > > >> >> If time is quantised .. yes . > >> > ----------------------------------- > >> > Bravo donkey crook !!! > > >> That's not me > > >> > (BTW quantized or not did i ever said it i snot quantized ??!!) > > >> You seemed to completely ignore that, as you did every time I said that > >> photon creation and destruction takes place within the smallest quantum > >> of > >> time (ie not created one instant and then, created the next, never a time > >> when it is part-created (or part-destroyed) so created (or destroyed) in > >> an > >> instant). > > >> If you actually bothered reading what I say instead of throwing your > >> little > >> tantrums you would know that > > >> > ------------- > >> > please answer the* two* following questions : > >> > 1 > > >> > is > >> > the Planck time is say 5.38 exp-44 SECOND > >> > (AGAIN SECONDS) !!!!!!!!! ---- > > >> Why repeat 'SECONDS'. > > >> > -- IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > >> You want to know if a time duration is time dependent. Gees. How stupid > >> are you? > > >> Have a read ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time > > >> === > >> In physics, the Planck time, (tP), is the unit of time in the system of > >> natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light to > >> travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length.[1] The unit is named > >> after Max Planck, who was the first to propose it. > > >> The Planck time is defined as: > > >> tP = sqrt((hbar G) / (c^5)) ~= 5.39124(27)x10^-44 > >> === > > >> Note that tP is not necessarily a quantum of time .. we do not know if > >> there > >> is such a notion, though it has been suggested. > > >> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Quantised_time > >> === > >> Quantised time > >> See also: Chronon > >> Time quantization is a hypothetical concept. In the modern established > >> physical theories (the Standard Model of Particles and Interactions and > >> General Relativity) time is not quantized. > >> Planck time (~ 5.4 � 10?44 seconds) is the unit of time in the system of > >> natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical > >> theories > >> are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that > >> the > >> Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be > >> measured, > >> even in principle. > > ... > > read more » ------------------ and now i directed a question to PD not to the Nazi pig Inertial so you dont answer unless YOU ARE ACTUALLY PD WITH ANOTHER NAME (:-)!!!!!!.... or PD is using you as his agent to hide behind you or your false name ....(:-)!!! in any case if PD is an honest man he should answer short very short apposite answers and not hide behind you !!! ... Y.P -----------------------
From: Inertial on 22 Mar 2010 08:03 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c6c3707d-e27f-4293-9a4d-b3184b6be6b4(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 22, 1:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:9f03ae6c-0927-4c2c-b3cd-ed90a5d2e775(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Mar 22, 4:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:171639c6-faea-4fc7-8385-d2380a7ce030(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Mar 22, 12:52 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:10a93758-a2ab-4e55-9c51-fa23d4c76d97(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mar 21, 11:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:4b2cfc64-958c-4309-ba6b-b4a4d8247eb9(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 7:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 20, 5:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Mar 20, 4:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On Mar 20, 1:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > On Mar 19, 10:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:29 pm, Kumar >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > On Mar 18, 6:36 pm, PD >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:28 am, Kumar >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:49 am, Saimhain Moose >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > <samhainmo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 12:21 am, Kumar >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Are activities not dependant on applied >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > forces? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Exactly what do you mean by "activities"? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Something done as an action or a movement. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > They're not the same. A movement (specifically >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > a >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > change >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > in >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > movement) >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > is the *response* to a force. The force is the >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > cause, >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > the >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > acceleration >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > is the effect. Motion is not a cause. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > What is the differance between acceleration & >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > motion? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Motion includes any change in position, which can >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > be >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > done >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > at >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > constant >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > velocity (for which the acceleration is zero) or >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > with >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > changing >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > velocity (for which the acceleration is nonzero). >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > > > > and that is exactly why by definition >> >> >> >> >> > > > > photon energy emission is not >> >> >> >> >> > > > > INSTANTANEOUS (:-) >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Nope. Photons are not accelerated. They are traveling >> >> >> >> >> > > > at c >> >> >> >> >> > > > when >> >> >> >> >> > > > they >> >> >> >> >> > > > are created. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ------------------ >> >> >> >> >> > > you must be joking!! >> >> >> >> >> >> > > we dont deal with the traveling of photons >> >> >> >> >> > > we deal with >> >> >> >> >> > > THE TIME THEY ARE CREATED !! >> >> >> >> >> > > OR ABSORBED !! >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes, exactly. When they are created, they are not >> >> >> >> >> > accelerated. >> >> >> >> >> > The >> >> >> >> >> > instant they are created, they are going at c. >> >> >> >> >> > No, I'm not joking. Not everything behaves like little red >> >> >> >> >> > wagons. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > didi you see and understood the >> >> >> >> >> > > experiment i introduced >> >> >> >> >> >> > > th e enimssion of ELECTRONS of the photoelectric cell >> >> >> >> >> > > was >> >> >> >> >> > > linearly proportional to time duration of the >> >> >> >> >> > > lead torch >> >> >> >> >> > > AND IT WAS LESS THAN A SECOND !!! >> >> >> >> >> >> > > the distance between the torch and the >> >> >> >> >> > > photoelectric cell was 40 Cm !!! >> >> >> >> >> >> > > so what is your talking about >> >> >> >> >> > > the time travel of the photons ?? >> >> >> >> >> > > (i try my best not to be rude ..) >> >> >> >> >> >> > > it was not from the sun >> >> >> >> >> > > it was from the torch >> >> >> >> >> > > and even so >> >> >> >> >> > > the energy emission took time - >> >> >> >> >> > > not all the *electrons* were emitted instantaneously !!! >> >> >> >> >> > > they came out of the cells -- one after the other in >> >> >> >> >> > > some >> >> >> >> >> > > interval >> >> >> >> >> > > of >> >> >> >> >> > > time >> >> >> >> >> > > and during less than a second !!! >> >> >> >> >> > > so >> >> >> >> >> > > time absorption of photon energy is >> >> >> >> >> > > TIMW DEOENDENT OR NOT >> >> >> >> >> >> > > do you have a shorter time than the Planck time >> >> >> >> >> > > ****that can be proven experimentally ??*** >> >> >> >> >> >> > > iow >> >> >> >> >> > > is there any experiment that can be **done** >> >> >> >> >> > > **or followed *** a physical event that is shorter than >> >> >> >> >> > > Plank time ?? >> >> >> >> >> > > ie >> >> >> >> >> > > 5.38 exp-44 second !!! ??? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > was it not you that was preaching that >> >> >> >> >> > > if something cannot be proven by experiment >> >> >> >> >> > > it is .......?.... >> >> >> >> >> > > even theoretically nothing can be** done** >> >> >> >> >> > > literally instantaneous >> >> >> >> >> > > because to do is to change something >> >> >> >> >> > > to change is to move something >> >> >> >> >> > > and to move is by definition a time user !! >> >> >> >> >> >> > > please answer all my above climes >> >> >> >> >> > > and not just one of them !! >> >> >> >> >> >> > > TIA >> >> >> >> >> > > Y.Porat >> >> >> >> >> > > ------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------- >> >> >> >> >> you certainly are joking: >> >> >> >> >> >> 1 >> >> >> >> >> because you ddint answer all my questions >> >> >> >> >> as i asked you ... >> >> >> >> >> 2 >> >> >> >> >> you was hand waiving >> >> >> >> >> based on no experimental data >> >> >> >> >> >> while i based my climes on the experimental >> >> >> >> >> facts by Plank and othrs >> >> >> >> >> ie >> >> >> >> >> they were to difficult to digest for you >> >> >> >> >> 3 >> >> >> >> >> your 'instantaneous' emitting of energy is >> >> >> >> >> against the H U P >> >> >> >> >> it gives you >> >> >> >> >> infinite error for energy emission !!! >> >> >> >> >> >> ATB >> >> >> >> >> Y.Porat >> >> >> >> >> --------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > actually to be honest !! >> >> >> >> >> > the HUP test occurred to me just yesterday >> >> >> >> >> > and it is clear to me that it tells us that >> >> >> >> > instantaneous emission of photon energy >> >> >> >> > is clearly against the HUP >> >> >> >> >> Nope >> >> >> >> >> > but still >> >> >> >> > i dont know how i manage or what does it mean to my Planck >> >> >> >> > time >> >> >> >> > emission of photon energy >> >> >> >> > ie >> >> >> >> > during 5.38 exp-44 second !!!... >> >> >> >> >> Which is instantaneous .. that means in a single instant. One >> >> >> >> instant >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> doesn't exist, the next it does. That's what we've been telling >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> > (my more abstarct time definition of it was >> >> >> >> > bigger than zero but MUCH smaller than 1.0000) >> >> >> >> >> > so lets examine it together in this ng!! >> >> >> >> > or may be better in my original thread about it >> >> >> >> >> > 'A better new definition of the real single photon >> >> >> >> > energy emission ') >> >> >> >> >> You don't have a better definition, and we don't need one >> >> >> >> > ---------------------- >> >> >> > now you sat that 5.38 exp-44 is instantaneous???!!! >> >> >> >> If time is quantised .. yes . >> >> > ----------------------------------- >> >> > Bravo donkey crook !!! >> >> >> That's not me >> >> >> > (BTW quantized or not did i ever said it i snot quantized ??!!) >> >> >> You seemed to completely ignore that, as you did every time I said >> >> that >> >> photon creation and destruction takes place within the smallest >> >> quantum >> >> of >> >> time (ie not created one instant and then, created the next, never a >> >> time >> >> when it is part-created (or part-destroyed) so created (or destroyed) >> >> in >> >> an >> >> instant). >> >> >> If you actually bothered reading what I say instead of throwing your >> >> little >> >> tantrums you would know that >> >> >> > ------------- >> >> > please answer the* two* following questions : >> >> > 1 >> >> >> > is >> >> > the Planck time is say 5.38 exp-44 SECOND >> >> > (AGAIN SECONDS) !!!!!!!!! ---- >> >> >> Why repeat 'SECONDS'. >> >> >> > -- IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? >> >> >> You want to know if a time duration is time dependent. Gees. How >> >> stupid >> >> are you? >> >> >> Have a read ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time >> >> >> === >> >> In physics, the Planck time, (tP), is the unit of time in the system >> >> of >> >> natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light >> >> to >> >> travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length.[1] The unit is >> >> named >> >> after Max Planck, who was the first to propose it. >> >> >> The Planck time is defined as: >> >> >> tP = sqrt((hbar G) / (c^5)) ~= 5.39124(27)x10^-44 >> >> === >> >> >> Note that tP is not necessarily a quantum of time .. we do not know if >> >> there >> >> is such a notion, though it has been suggested. >> >> >> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Quantised_time >> >> === >> >> Quantised time >> >> See also: Chronon >> >> Time quantization is a hypothetical concept. In the modern established >> >> physical theories (the Standard Model of Particles and Interactions >> >> and >> >> General Relativity) time is not quantized. >> >> Planck time (~ 5.4 � 10?44 seconds) is the unit of time in the >> >> system of >> >> natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical >> >> theories >> >> are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect >> >> that >> >> the >> >> Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be >> >> measured, >> >> even in principle. >> >> ... >> >> read more � > > ------------------ > and now i directed a question to PD > not to the Nazi pig That's you, not me > Inertial I'll answer if I like. > so > you dont answer unless > YOU ARE ACTUALLY PD WITH ANOTHER NAME (:-)!!!!!!.... I'll answer if I like. > or > PD is using you as his agent I'll answer if I like. > to hide behind you or your false name ....(:-)!!! > in any case > if PD is an honest man I see no reason to think he is not. You, however, have proven yourself dishonest > he should answer short very short apposite > answers > and not hide behind you !!! That's up to him. Of course, he won't answer because you were so busy attacking me (as usual) that you forgot to ask the question. BAAHAHAHAHA
From: Y.Porat on 22 Mar 2010 12:27 On Mar 22, 11:58 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 5:34 pm, PD > > and not just one of them !! > > > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------- > > since i started my discussion here with > PD > and not with the psychopath Inertial > > i would like to ask ****PD** > just two simple questions: > as follows and expect > Very very short answers !! > --- > > 1 > > > > is > > > the Planck time is say 5.38 exp-44 SECOND > > > (AGAIN SECONDS) !!!!!!!!! ---- > > (that is how it is defined !!) > > -- IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > 2> > who was **the first** one to suggest the *Planck time*-- > > --- as the time duration of the smallest *** SINGLE*** photon > ***energy > ** EMISSION*** ??? > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------ and i am still waiting TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: Inertial on 22 Mar 2010 17:43 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:52d3e9bf-3c99-421a-9ff1-064bb17652d4(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 22, 11:58 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 20, 5:34 pm, PD > > and not just one of them !! >> >> >> >> > > TIA >> > > Y.Porat >> > > ------------- >> >> since i started my discussion here with >> PD >> and not with the psychopath Inertial >> >> i would like to ask ****PD** >> just two simple questions: >> as follows and expect >> Very very short answers !! >> --- >> >> 1 >> >> > > is >> > > the Planck time is say 5.38 exp-44 SECOND >> > > (AGAIN SECONDS) !!!!!!!!! ---- >> >> (that is how it is defined !!) >> >> -- IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? >> >> 2> > who was **the first** one to suggest the *Planck time*-- >> >> --- as the time duration of the smallest *** SINGLE*** photon >> ***energy >> ** EMISSION*** ??? In which of the many threads you started or hijacked ? >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ------------------------ > > and i am still waiting Perhaps he has just given up on you as a lost cause and can't be bothered reading your posts.
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 17:49
On Mar 22, 4:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:52d3e9bf-3c99-421a-9ff1-064bb17652d4(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 22, 11:58 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 5:34 pm, PD > > and not just one of them !! > > >> > > TIA > >> > > Y.Porat > >> > > ------------- > > >> since i started my discussion here with > >> PD > >> and not with the psychopath Inertial > > >> i would like to ask ****PD** > >> just two simple questions: > >> as follows and expect > >> Very very short answers !! > >> --- > > >> 1 > > >> > > is > >> > > the Planck time is say 5.38 exp-44 SECOND > >> > > (AGAIN SECONDS) !!!!!!!!! ---- > > >> (that is how it is defined !!) > > >> -- IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > >> 2> > who was **the first** one to suggest the *Planck time*-- > > >> --- as the time duration of the smallest *** SINGLE*** photon > >> ***energy > >> ** EMISSION*** ??? > > In which of the many threads you started or hijacked ? > > > > >> TIA > >> Y.Porat > >> ------------------------ > > > and i am still waiting > > Perhaps he has just given up on you as a lost cause and can't be bothered > reading your posts. You got it. |