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: 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.
From: Kumar on 21 Mar 2010 23:04 On Mar 21, 11:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 8:45 pm, 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? > > Yes, though it may happen in more than one step. Btw, Do any energy need any external aid for traveling or it is just its property? > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Kumar on 21 Mar 2010 23:12 On Mar 21, 11:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 8:46 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 7:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > But on the other it can also add few new things by brain-storming. > > That depends on how much time you're willing to waste. If you've got > nothing but time to waste, then burning a lot of it on misconceptions > due to poor language won't bother you, especially if you just like > "brain-storming" as an idle activity. > You'll find that, among the people you engage with, the brighter ones > will be less cavalier about their time.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It don't happen with me. It is not time waste but time use in trying to understand new things. Reading or remembering older things are just repetitions. Just my views. Sptritually GOD is said to be omni-scient & omnipresent along with omnipotent, so all can be cosidered accordingly. Masked/slept or clear/awakened may only be a difference. Everyone should be having a knowlege of everything which he had experianced till evoluttion & in view of such omisciency. I think it is logic.
From: Kumar on 21 Mar 2010 23:16 On Mar 22, 12:30 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 1:51 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 3:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 3:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 20, 5:46 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 5:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > mass is motion- is a cause.-- > > > > > > > > > while it collides with something > > > > > > > > > > momentum as well is mass in motion > > > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > > Can it be there that application of energy to atoms causing > > > > > > > > excitation as action then they are decaying back releasing photons as > > > > > > > > reaction? > > > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > > yes i t could be > > > > > > > but the problem is to make some > > > > > > > reasonable 'mechanism' > > > > > > > that will show it all along the way > > > > > > > > but in generally and abstractly i think you are right !! > > > > > > > Does it justify equal & opposite reaction to any action at basic or > > > > > > atleast atomic level level? Rest we can look thereafter. > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > yes > > > > > i think that at he bottom line > > > > > it is always > > > > > action = reaction > > > > > that is one of the basics of the physical world !! > > > > > > ATB > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > > > btw have you ever heard about > > > > > > > the Bootstrap theory ?? > > > > > > > > it is in generally compared to the zoological world !! > > > > > > > in which each creature is eating the other one > > > > > > > and uses its flesh material to build its > > > > > > > ]own body !! > > > > > > > sorry the nasty comparison > > > > > > > I have not heard about it but it looks to be natural theory rather > > > > > > than social theory. > > > > > > > > but it i s not **my* invention > > > > > > > but in generally it is very compatible to my > > > > > > > world of mater and particle and EVEN ENERGY > > > > > > > world understanding > > > > > > > and that is why i always say > > > > > > > > ''No mass no real physics'' > > > > > > > even for energy and photons !!! > > > > > > > > what you suggested above > > > > > > > fits in a general way --that theory !!! > > > > > > > Thanks we can try to look it as a basic thought than we can try > > > > > > linking it at gross level. How this theory can be linked at > > > > > > complex( molecular, substances, things & beings) levels?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > What about the involvement of gravitation force in equal & opposite > > > > consideration? > > > > ------------------ > > > i told you > > > i am a structural engineer > > > and i could not do a single step in my profession without that > > > weight == reaction from the foundation!! > > > > and not only in the foundation part > > > any single part of that what ever complicated structure > > > with a certain weight > > > must be balanced by exact > > > opposite* reactions**(with an upwards component * !! > > > from the other parts that are holding it in rest > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If we climb up high on a hill, we can either fall or descend down to > > plains. Is it not equal & opposite due to gravitational force? > > ---------------- > may be > actually no one now knows exactly > what is going on there > we can know it only abstractly !!! > just remember that most people think about the electron as a point > particle (:- > th e nuc as a sphere > eelctrons orbiting in 3 4 5 6 shells > etc etc etc > ie playing chess with themselves > Y.P > ---------------------- > Y.P > ---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Electron orbiting is one basis of most understandings. Do you mean no one knows or sure about this basic understanding?
From: Y.Porat on 22 Mar 2010 05:58
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 ------------------------ |