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: Y.Porat on 21 Mar 2010 01:29 On Mar 21, 3:45 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 7:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 11:00 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 1:44 am, 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).- > > > > Let us see it with an example. Exiting of an electron by application > > > of energy & its decaying back on emitting photons. Are both of these > > > are motions & acceleration or just exiting is acceleration but its > > > decaying back not? > > > When an electron is emitted, the momentum transferred to the electron > > is equal and opposite to the momentum transferred to the atom. > > Likewise, when a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. > > Do you mean to say that applied energy/momentum to atom which caused > excitation of its electrons is equal & opposite to energy released+ > energy required for travelling of electrons/photons? > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - ----------------- ddint you noticed that all that' story' about 'time traveling of photons ' is complete nonsense? (or 'trowing sand into out eyes "") since we deal with those photon energy ONLY AFTER ARRIVAL TO OUR TESTED ARENA !!! 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: Kumar on 21 Mar 2010 04:29 On Mar 21, 10:29 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 3:45 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 7:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 19, 11:00 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 20, 1:44 am, 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).- > > > > > Let us see it with an example. Exiting of an electron by application > > > > of energy & its decaying back on emitting photons. Are both of these > > > > are motions & acceleration or just exiting is acceleration but its > > > > decaying back not? > > > > When an electron is emitted, the momentum transferred to the electron > > > is equal and opposite to the momentum transferred to the atom. > > > Likewise, when a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. > > > Do you mean to say that applied energy/momentum to atom which caused > > excitation of its electrons is equal & opposite to energy released+ > > energy required for travelling of electrons/photons? > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > ----------------- > ddint you noticed > that all that' story' about > 'time traveling of photons ' is complete nonsense? > (or 'trowing sand into out eyes "") > since we deal with those photon energy > ONLY AFTER ARRIVAL TO OUR TESTED ARENA !!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes. How gravitational force can be related to equal & opposite effect?
From: Kumar on 21 Mar 2010 04:34 On Mar 21, 10:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 3:35 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:12 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 6:00 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 20, 1:44 am, 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).- > > > > > Let us see it with an example. Exiting of an electron by application > > > > of energy & its decaying back on emitting photons. Are both of these > > > > are motions & acceleration or just exiting is acceleration but its > > > > decaying back not? > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > ------------------ > > > IMHO > > > photon emission can be > > > in both cases > > > (if your car collides with another car > > > a lot of 'thunder and lightnings' are created > > > !!(:-) > > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > How photons emmission can be possible on exciting state of electrons? > > ---------------------- > why not possible ?? It is said; During a molecular, atomic or nuclear transition to a **lower energy level, photons of various energy will be emitted, from infrared light to gamma rays. ? > > Y.P > ---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Kumar on 21 Mar 2010 04:57
On Mar 16, 9:34 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 7:35 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > Newton's third law is frequently stated > > > "Action and reaction are equal and opposite > > To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" > > > Law is defined as; > > > The term law is often used to refer to universal principles that > > describe the fundamental nature of something, to universal properties > > and relationships between things, or to descriptions that purport to > > explain these principles and relationships.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(principle) > > > I have some questions:- > > > 1. Is it also true that "to every reaction there is equal and opposite > > action"? > > > 2. Can we consider action or reaction as activities or motions and as > > law hold universal application, whether above action reaction > > relationship will apply to all our activities? > > > Best wishes. > > It applies to forces. Almost nothing else.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Will you tell how equal & opposte effect relates to fundamental forces. I have discussed about EM. What about other three? "The interaction of radiation with matter involves the absorption, scattering, and emission of photons". Does it not suggest that excitation of electrons related to just absorption & emission to their decaying back? |