Reaction-Action-Activities relationship?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
Next: Band GAP energy
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 10:49 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. > now you contradicted yourself > unless you got my new finding that > photon emission is done in > Planck s time ! > 5.38 exp-44 second > > i cant see anything **done**! in less than the above Planck unit > time > certainly not your zero time > (can we agree once in a life time about anything? > or by principle ('because it is Porat' ) - not ...) > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------- > > Y.P > -------------
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 10:51 On Mar 19, 11:22 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 9:11 am, Saimhain Moose <samhainmo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 12:29 am, 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? > > > How about you learn some basic physics, like the MEANINGS of the > > words, before you try to figure out WHY things behave as they do? > > You really can't discuss things until you've got the vocabulary > > and are using words to have the same meanings as everybody else > > does.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > It it wrong if I try to understand in common/logical language? Yes, it can be. Ordinary language is vague and imprecise, which is why physics attaches very specific meanings to some words. The lack of sloppiness will prevent you from making statements that are wrong. > > Can we say, energy/force applications causing deviations from natural > position of any substance are actions/acceleration whereas its coming > back to natural position are reactions? eg. exciting of electrons on > energy applications and their decaying back on leaving photons or > contractions & relaxations in our body. Whereas motions are both way > till its settle.
From: Y.Porat on 20 Mar 2010 11:24 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 !! 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 -------------
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 11:34 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 > -------------
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 --------------------- |