Prev: Stephen Hawking and Two Physical Times
Next: Aether is a physical substance
From: Y.Porat on 5 Apr 2010 20:50
On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As for me
>
> > the Doppler effect
> > is an immediate disprove of the
> > E=hf
> > as  the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>
> Please explain how.

-----------------
thank you igor
actually i am surprised that you ask me an apposite question
instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
anyway
lets thake it step by step:

lets take the case in which
the observers frame
is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
actually it does not matter
who is running away from who
the only relevant thing is
that the distance between them
is becoming bigger with time
(oops that bloody time again (:-))
--
so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
right ??
if so
the energy of E=hf becomes smaller
rigth??
so
a question:
is it is a contradiction to
the law of *conservation of energy*
or do we have a way to reconcile
that apparent contradiction
and HOW ??

that is the first step
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------





From: Inertial on 5 Apr 2010 21:17

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a51b27bd-95aa-44f1-ad94-fcbd30c3f5bb(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > As for me
>>
>> > the Doppler effect
>> > is an immediate disprove of the
>> > E=hf
>> > as the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>>
>> Please explain how.
>
> -----------------
> thank you igor
> actually i am surprised that you ask me an apposite question
> instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
> anyway
> lets thake it step by step:
>
> lets take the case in which
> the observers frame
> is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
> actually it does not matter
> who is running away from who
> the only relevant thing is
> that the distance between them
> is becoming bigger with time
> (oops that bloody time again (:-))

Yes .. you got something right

> --
> so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
> right ??

Yes

> if so
> the energy of E=hf becomes smaller
> rigth??

Yes

> so
> a question:
> is it is a contradiction to
> the law of *conservation of energy*

No .. it is not.

> or do we have a way to reconcile
> that apparent contradiction
> and HOW ??

There is no contradiction at all. Energy is observer dependent, and
conservation is only per-frame, not between frames. eg

KE = 1/2 mv^2

The value of velocity is observer dependent and so the energy is observer
dependent.

For every inertial observer, the energy they measure in their frame is
conserved. But that does not mean that the same energy is measured for all
observers

> that is the first step

And already your ignorance of physics is letting you down. You really
should LEARN some physics first before having the audacity to attempt to
'innovate'.


From: Y.Porat on 6 Apr 2010 02:18
On Apr 6, 3:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a51b27bd-95aa-44f1-ad94-fcbd30c3f5bb(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > As for me
>
> >> > the Doppler effect
> >> > is an immediate disprove of the
> >> > E=hf
> >> > as  the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>
> >> Please explain how.
>
> > -----------------
> > thank you    igor
> > actually  i am surprised that you ask me an  apposite question
> > instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
> > anyway
> > lets thake it step by step:
>
> > lets take the case in which
> > the observers frame
> > is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
> > actually it does not matter
> > who is running away from who
> > the only relevant thing is
> > that the distance between  them
> > is becoming bigger with  time
> > (oops  that bloody  time again (:-))
>
> Yes .. you got something right
>
> > --
> > so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
> > right ??
>
> Yes
>
> > if so
> > the energy of  E=hf becomes smaller
> > rigth??
>
> Yes
>
> > so
> > a question:
> > is it is a contradiction to
> > the law of *conservation of energy*
>
> No .. it is not.
>
> > or do  we have a way to reconcile
> > that apparent contradiction
> > and  HOW  ??
>
> There is no contradiction at all.  Energy is observer dependent, and
> conservation is only per-frame, not between frames.  eg
>
> KE = 1/2 mv^2
>
> The value of velocity is observer dependent and so the energy is observer
> dependent.
>
> For every inertial observer, the energy they measure in their frame is
> conserved.  But that does not mean that the same energy is measured for all
> observers
>
> > that  is   the first step
>
> And already your ignorance of physics is letting you down.  You really
> should LEARN some physics first before having the audacity to attempt to
> 'innovate'.

-------------------
(:-)
imbecile !!! not even a crook
just a psychopath imbecile !!

lets hear more cleaver knowledgeable people !!

next !!!
Y.P
--------------------
From: Inertial on 6 Apr 2010 05:05

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b700989e-6773-43a7-b025-f5fdc644e14c(a)k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 3:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a51b27bd-95aa-44f1-ad94-fcbd30c3f5bb(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > As for me
>>
>> >> > the Doppler effect
>> >> > is an immediate disprove of the
>> >> > E=hf
>> >> > as the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>>
>> >> Please explain how.
>>
>> > -----------------
>> > thank you igor
>> > actually i am surprised that you ask me an apposite question
>> > instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
>> > anyway
>> > lets thake it step by step:
>>
>> > lets take the case in which
>> > the observers frame
>> > is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
>> > actually it does not matter
>> > who is running away from who
>> > the only relevant thing is
>> > that the distance between them
>> > is becoming bigger with time
>> > (oops that bloody time again (:-))
>>
>> Yes .. you got something right
>>
>> > --
>> > so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
>> > right ??
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> > if so
>> > the energy of E=hf becomes smaller
>> > rigth??
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> > so
>> > a question:
>> > is it is a contradiction to
>> > the law of *conservation of energy*
>>
>> No .. it is not.
>>
>> > or do we have a way to reconcile
>> > that apparent contradiction
>> > and HOW ??
>>
>> There is no contradiction at all. Energy is observer dependent, and
>> conservation is only per-frame, not between frames. eg
>>
>> KE = 1/2 mv^2
>>
>> The value of velocity is observer dependent and so the energy is observer
>> dependent.
>>
>> For every inertial observer, the energy they measure in their frame is
>> conserved. But that does not mean that the same energy is measured for
>> all
>> observers
>>
>> > that is the first step
>>
>> And already your ignorance of physics is letting you down. You really
>> should LEARN some physics first before having the audacity to attempt to
>> 'innovate'.
>
> -------------------
> (:-)
> imbecile !!!

That's you

> not even a crook
> just a psychopath imbecile !!

That's you

> lets hear more cleaver knowledgeable people !!

You just did, when I posted. Does that mean you're not going to post any
more?

From: Y.Porat on 6 Apr 2010 05:08
On Apr 6, 11:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b700989e-6773-43a7-b025-f5fdc644e14c(a)k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 3:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a51b27bd-95aa-44f1-ad94-fcbd30c3f5bb(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > As for me
>
> >> >> > the Doppler effect
> >> >> > is an immediate disprove of the
> >> >> > E=hf
> >> >> > as  the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>
> >> >> Please explain how.
>
> >> > -----------------
> >> > thank you    igor
> >> > actually  i am surprised that you ask me an  apposite question
> >> > instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
> >> > anyway
> >> > lets thake it step by step:
>
> >> > lets take the case in which
> >> > the observers frame
> >> > is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
> >> > actually it does not matter
> >> > who is running away from who
> >> > the only relevant thing is
> >> > that the distance between  them
> >> > is becoming bigger with  time
> >> > (oops  that bloody  time again (:-))
>
> >> Yes .. you got something right
>
> >> > --
> >> > so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
> >> > right ??
>
> >> Yes
>
> >> > if so
> >> > the energy of  E=hf becomes smaller
> >> > rigth??
>
> >> Yes
>
> >> > so
> >> > a question:
> >> > is it is a contradiction to
> >> > the law of *conservation of energy*
>
> >> No .. it is not.
>
> >> > or do  we have a way to reconcile
> >> > that apparent contradiction
> >> > and  HOW  ??
>
> >> There is no contradiction at all.  Energy is observer dependent, and
> >> conservation is only per-frame, not between frames.  eg
>
> >> KE = 1/2 mv^2
>
> >> The value of velocity is observer dependent and so the energy is observer
> >> dependent.
>
> >> For every inertial observer, the energy they measure in their frame is
> >> conserved.  But that does not mean that the same energy is measured for
> >> all
> >> observers
>
> >> > that  is   the first step
>
> >> And already your ignorance of physics is letting you down.  You really
> >> should LEARN some physics first before having the audacity to attempt to
> >> 'innovate'.
>
> > -------------------
> > (:-)
> > imbecile !!!
>
> That's you
>
> > not even a crook
> > just a psychopath    imbecile !!
>
> That's you
>
> > lets hear more cleaver knowledgeable people !!
>
> You just did, when I posted.  Does that mean you're not going to post any
> more?

------------------------
psychopath Nazi pig !!

next
Y.P
-------------
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Stephen Hawking and Two Physical Times
Next: Aether is a physical substance