Reaction-Action-Activities relationship?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 20 Mar 2010 13:00 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 ---------------------
From: Y.Porat on 21 Mar 2010 01:45 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 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 !!!... (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 ') TIA Y.Porat ----------------
From: Inertial on 21 Mar 2010 05:59 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(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
From: Y.Porat on 21 Mar 2010 21:40 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 !!! (BTW quantized or not did i ever said it i snot quantized ??!!) ------------- please answer the* two* following questions : 1 is the Planck time is say 5.38 exp-44 SECOND (AGAIN SECONDS) !!!!!!!!! ---- -- IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? 2 who was **the first** one to suggest the *Planck time* as the time duration of ***A SINGLE*** photon ***energy EMISSION*** ??? TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------------
From: Inertial on 21 Mar 2010 22:13
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(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 of http://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. See http://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. Tentative physical theories that describe this time scale exist; see for instance loop quantum gravity. === > 2 > who was **the first** one to suggest the *Planck time* > as the time duration of ***A SINGLE*** photon ***energy > EMISSION*** ??? Me .. (one of the other posters may have mentioned it, I'm not sure, I don't have time to go trawling) .. certainly not you. I said multiple times that photons are created and destroyed within the smallest quanta of time (if time is quantised). Its all in the various thread histories here. Of course, that does NOT mean your equations for photon energy are in ANY way valid or sensible. The energy released by a single photon in that time (or any time) is E = hf .. ie it is a fixed value that is not time dependent. This has been found experimentally to be the case. It is a FACT. You cannot alter the facts by denying them. |